Lawyer Lips Lawsuit
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
Bikes had defective design, expert says
Front-wheel lever blamed in series of bicycle accidents
Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer
Saturday, December 10, 2005
A metals expert testified in court Friday that a San Rafael company
distributed children's bicycles with an inherently dangerous design
flaw, resulting since 1999 in more than 100 accidents nationwide in
which front wheels flew off the bikes and riders were catapulted
headfirst over the handlebars.
Robert Neil Anderson, professor emeritus of materials engineering at
San Jose State University, said he examined several bicycles imported
by Dynacraft BSC Inc. of San Rafael and sold by Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
and concluded that they had a defective quick-release lever on the
front wheel.
Nine boys from California and other states are suing Wal-Mart,
Dynacraft and Carl Warren & Co., which investigated claims for the San
Rafael importer. Wal-Mart and the other defendants have denied
wrongdoing.
Friday's testimony before a Marin County Superior Court jury came in
the first week of a trial in which the plaintiffs accuse the nation's
largest retailer and the bike importer of knowing about the problems
with the front wheels but continuing to sell the bikes and failing to
report injuries to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.
In other testimony Friday, a former claims adjuster testified in a
video deposition that her firm ignored her pleas that certain Wal-Mart
bicycles should be recalled because of dozens of injuries linked to the
faulty quick-release levers.
Three of the boys claim to have suffered brain damage from bicycle
accidents due to failed quick-release levers. The remaining six have
various injuries, including facial scarring, broken teeth and permanent
disfigurement.
Anderson testified that the bicycles' quick-release system, which is
designed to hold the front-wheel axle to the frame and allow the wheel
to be easily removed for repairs or transport, was "inappropriate" for
children and called the device "defective" in its design.
"It's dangerous," he said. "The way they are manufactured ... At any
time, the wheel can come off."
He criticized the manufacturer's choice of materials for the
quick-release lever, testifying that a soft bushing was insufficient to
hold the lever in a locked position.
"It's like using marshmallows to try to hold it in place. There's
nothing to clamp down on," Anderson said. "It's going to slip. It
doesn't have the ability to clamp."
Anderson also said the bicycle was designed to hold a safety device,
called a retainer clip -- with the inclusion of tiny holes in the forks
on the steering column to house this clip. But the bicycles appear to
have been sold without the clip, he added.
Plaintiffs' lead counsel Mark Webb asked Anderson about a series of
accidents from across the country involving Wal-Mart bikes with
allegedly faulty quick-release levers, including accidents that
occurred this year. The average age of those injured was about 10,
Anderson said.
The resulting injuries included broken arms and collarbones, cracked
elbows, torn ligaments, separated shoulders, a ruptured spleen, eye
damage, hematoma, seizures and road rash.
Robert Phillips, a lawyer for Wal-Mart, objected that the details of
children's bike accidents - other than those of the nine plaintiffs --
were inflammatory and should not be heard by the jury.
"The only thing these claims show is that the tire came off," Phillips
told the judge. "There are other reasons a wheel can come off besides a
quick-release problem."
Judge Michael B. Dufficy denied the motion.
The bicycles, mostly mountain bikes, were sold for about $150 apiece at
Wal-Mart under the Next brand name, with specific models such as Next
Shock Zone and Next Ultra Shock. Dynacraft said it imported more than
460,000 of the bikes, which are no longer being sold but are still in
use. The bikes' quick-release device has not been the subject of any
government or company recalls.
The bikes were made in China, with final assembly in the United States.
Wal-Mart referred accident claims to Dynacraft, which referred them to
Carl Warren & Co.
Laurie Heide, a former claims adjuster for Carl Warren & Co.'s office
in Kirkland, Wash., testified in a video deposition that she processed
25 to 40 accident claims in 2001 and 2002 involving faulty
quick-release levers, and that other adjusters in her office logged
similar numbers of claims.
Heide also testified that she spoke repeatedly to a supervisor about
the quick-release lever, but that he ignored her suggestion that the
bikes should be recalled.
The trial resumes next week, and Anderson will be cross-examined by the
defense.
jim beam
and how many other lawsuits does walmart or any other big retailer have
pending at any time? /any/ big corporation come to that. it's called
"greenmail". the plaintiff knows it's frivolous. the defendant knows
it's frivolous. but /both/ know that it's cheaper for the defendant to
pay rather than to win and be correct. and that's all this lawsuit is
setting up to do.
regarding this specific article;
1. it /doesn't/ mention lawyer lips.
2. it /does/ mention "defective" quick releases due to a "soft bushing".
therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
deliberate use of a misleading title.
damyth
We need pictures of this quick release. Where is this bushing that the
article alludes to?
Dan
<bay_bri...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134235852.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
I know Bob Anderson and have worked with him on many occasions over many
years. He is an objective investigator and certainly knows materials.
Your reference to "Lawyer Lips" in the heading indicates that you did not
read the article, did not understand the article or are trying to start a
flame war.
I have no doubt that is possible for a cheap manufacturer to turn out a
dangerous quick release. If it releases unexpectedly while riding, it is
probably dangerous.
A Muzi
>>>MARIN COUNTY
>>>Bikes had defective design, expert says
>>>Front-wheel lever blamed in series of bicycle accidents
> jim beam wrote:
>>and how many other lawsuits does walmart or any other big retailer have
>>pending at any time? /any/ big corporation come to that. it's called
>>"greenmail". the plaintiff knows it's frivolous. the defendant knows
>>it's frivolous. but /both/ know that it's cheaper for the defendant to
>>pay rather than to win and be correct. and that's all this lawsuit is
>>setting up to do.
>>regarding this specific article;
>>1. it /doesn't/ mention lawyer lips.
>>2. it /does/ mention "defective" quick releases due to a "soft bushing".
>>therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
>>deliberate use of a misleading title.
damyth wrote:
> We need pictures of this quick release. Where is this bushing that the
> article alludes to?
You are probably familiar without a picture.
Traditional skewers were all steel with a cam inside a bell
housing and lubricated at the factory. Those are now often
shipped dry, which makes them quite difficult to lock properly.
A new variant is made with a simple aluminum cam bearing on
a scalloped nylon pad. Those are arguably worse and even
dismal when dry. I expect WalMart doesn't regularly assign
someone to check that for lubrication on their
bicycle-shaped-objects. At least we commonly see them with
bent aluminum levers as the user tried to lock them and
failed. Heck even lesser LBS BSOs around here are seldom
lubed or locked properly.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tim McNamara
> I have no doubt that is possible for a cheap manufacturer to turn
> out a dangerous quick release. If it releases unexpectedly while
> riding, it is probably dangerous.
There's no "probably" about it. Without seeing the quick release and
fork in question, however, no one here is going to be in a position to
comment intelligently on the plaintiff's claims.
The author of the newspaper article is using a nice bit of hysterical
rhetoric in his writing- e.g., that the wheels "flew" off, etc.
I also note in a few seconds with Google, something the article's
author didn't bother to do, that there is a recall on these bicycles
dated 2001:
http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml01/01132.html
And a few more hysterical things:
http://www.shokbikes.org/momstories.htm
I'm always amazed that people are surprised when they don't know how
to use something, don't exert any effort to learn, and then get hurt
when they use the thing. Now, I'm not saying that Wal*Mart's cheapo
bikes aren't defective because I don't know and I wouldn't be
surprised if they are. Maybe it's the toy mentality, confusing a bike
with a toy instead of realizing that it is in fact a vehicle.
I haven't looked much through this Web site, but it makes at least one
good point- bikes are not toys:
(PeteCresswell)
> quick release. If it releases unexpectedly while riding, it is
>probably dangerous.
"probably" ???
--
PeteCresswell
Chris Z The Wheelman
that cost less that what an experienced cyclist would bother paying for
a bike.
How many of these, I wonder, are the cause of bad instalation (A.K.A.
common stupitidity), not design?
- -
These comments compliments of,
Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman
My web Site:
http://geocities.com/czcorner
To E-mail me:
ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net
Hank Wirtz
news:wd6dnZ7w04z4iAbe...@speakeasy.net:
> regarding this specific article;
>
> 1. it /doesn't/ mention lawyer lips.
>
But it does mention their cheaper cousins, Nader's Hooks...
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
>>
> therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
> deliberate use of a misleading title.
Um, no, the article was forwarded because some might it interesting.
On the other hand, if flaming someone over the title of their posting
isn't a troll, then I don't know what is.
Werehatrack
<tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>"Dan" <banquo...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> I have no doubt that is possible for a cheap manufacturer to turn
>> out a dangerous quick release. If it releases unexpectedly while
>> riding, it is probably dangerous.
>
>There's no "probably" about it. Without seeing the quick release and
>fork in question, however, no one here is going to be in a position to
>comment intelligently on the plaintiff's claims.
I believe that I may have seen one of the QRs in question; it was, as
I recall, hard to open and close, and it flunked my quickie test; when
clamped in the manner I usually employ (lever straight out, spin down
the opposite nut to firm contact, clamp the lever) it still allowed
the axle to move within the clamping area when I applied side pressure
to the rim. This was a couple of years ago, and I am not entirely
certain that the bike involved was one of the ones directly under
discussion, but I recall that it was a kid's bike, fairly new, with a
suspension fork, and it was a department-store brand.
>I also note in a few seconds with Google, something the article's
>author didn't bother to do, that there is a recall on these bicycles
>dated 2001:
>
>http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml01/01132.html
Not related to the QR, however; that was due to a faulty fork.
(Suspension forks have been the subject of a number of bike recalls.)
There has been no recall over the QR itself.
>And a few more hysterical things:
>
>http://www.shokbikes.org/momstories.htm
That's unfortunately typical of the kind of overreaction that occurs
today when Junior is "endangered". Too bad more of those folks don't
act the same way about the subject of the hazard to their own kids in
the same vehicle when they drive along with a cell phone glued to
their ear.
>I'm always amazed that people are surprised when they don't know how
>to use something, don't exert any effort to learn, and then get hurt
>when they use the thing.
In the case of the bicycle, it's viewed as a "what's to learn?"
situation. The fact that the bikes today look pretty much like the
ones of 20 or 40 (or more) years ago lulls the buyers into a sense of
familiarity. While there are bikes with the level of simplicity that
was common in the bikes of the '70s and prior, many current bikes have
a number of new and (to those who have not kept up) unfamiliar ways to
trip up the unwary.
> Now, I'm not saying that Wal*Mart's cheapo
>bikes aren't defective because I don't know and I wouldn't be
>surprised if they are. Maybe it's the toy mentality, confusing a bike
>with a toy instead of realizing that it is in fact a vehicle.
In large part, I don't think that Wal-Mart is driving the perception,
but rather that the perception is driving Wal-Mart. In much of the
US, riding a bike is viewed as something that only children and stupid
liberal assholes do. (That description courtesy of a person ahead of
me in a checkout line in a Wal-Mart in Salina, KS earlier this year.)
As a result, Wal-Mart probably places the bikes in the part of the
store where they expect that the majority of potential buyers will be
looking for them.
From what I've seen in looking at bikes in Wal-Marts, it appears that
the company has been reducing the number of QR-equipped bikes that
they sell. It also appears that they could stand to improve their
bike assembler training; at several stores I have seen mountain bikes
whose forks were installed backwards. I've seen other assembly
shorcomings commonly as well. (Wal-Mart isn't alone on that; Target
has the same problem.) Otherwise, the bikes sold at Wal-Mart appear
to be largely a YGWYPF product; low-end, heavy, low-tech, but adequate
for trasportation and casual use, as long as performance, fit and (in
many cases) comfort are not important criteria or are well-met by the
bike in question.
>I haven't looked much through this Web site, but it makes at least one
>good point- bikes are not toys:
>
>http://www.bikesrnottoys.com/
It's not as hysterical and misinformed as the other site, but I still
find assertions to disagree with.
The middle ground view would hold that based on wide experience, a lot
of folks buy bikes at big department stores and proceed to get a lot
of years of casual use from them with little or no trouble; the site's
claim that "toy store" bikes don't last is not supported by objective
fact. If they said that mass retailer bikes may cost more to repair
than replace because the repair parts suppliers are not catering to
the low-cost market, they would be closer to on-target.
Most big retailers have stopped charging for bike assembly, at least
in my area and the regions through which I travel; the site's
assertion that most stores charge for assembly is probably out of date
or regionally driven. They are largely correct that the large
non-specialist retailers do not typically have anyone trained in
adjustment or repair of the bikes on duty full-time, and that they
frequently just replace a broken unit with another of the same
type...which may or may not have the same problem[1]. This, too, is
variable, however; at least one Wal-Mart near me now has a bike tech
who does, in fact, repair the returned units for the customer when
requested (within certain limits) instead of just automatically
replacing the bike with a different one, and he's a full-time
employee, but he has additional duties beyond bike assembly..
The one-size-fits-all criticism is largely valid, but for the casual
rider and for the fairly substantial market segment for whom one of
the department store bikes is a good fit, it's less of an issue than
for the enthusiast market.
The claim that lbs bikes have resale value while retailer bikes have
none is an apples-and-oranges comparison at best. On the one hand, an
expensive lbs bike has no factually similar retail-store unit for
comparison, but a low-end lbs bike will bring little more if resold
several years later than its cheaper Wal-Mart cousins; I see plenty of
older lbs bikes at Goodwill for $20 or less right next to
flashier-looking Roadmasters that are tagged at a higher price...and
all of them will find a buyer. Which is the better return on
investment; a $600 bike that sells for $200 four years later, or a
$200 bike that sells for $25 four years later? The depreciation is
less with the cheaper unit, and if the rider's needs are such that the
cheaper unit will do the job, the $600 expenditure produces no
savings.
I would hold that anything that gets people on bikes and riding is a
good thing. Much of the population simply can't afford the
substantial incremental difference in price between the Wal-Mart bikes
and the lbs units, nor can they afford to have a bike professionally
repaired if something fails in any event. For that large and growing
part of the market, then, the cheaper bikes at the mass-market
retailers are the entry point that's possible; denigrating it
unnecessarily serves only to persuade people that they really don't
want to spend the money on a bike at all. I'd present the argument
differently if I was writing the copy for that website, acknowledging
that the mass-market bikes are, in reality, precisely what they are;
cheap, mass-produced, low-end bikes that are not in the same class as
the majority of lbs bikes. I'd present the neutral view which they
claim to support but which is pretty obviously not present. I'd point
out the differences in each area as well as the relevance, just
presenting the facts with careful attention to explaining what each
point really means in terms of ridability, durability, and value. If,
after carefully weighing the issues from a well-informed base, the
buyer finds that the rider's needs are met by the department store
bikes, then there is no reason not to buy one.
[1] One place where I've consistently seen a really annoying
shortcoming in the department-store bikes is in the area of the seat
mounting clamp. This isn't new; I first battled with them in the
'60s, and had hoped that either the design or its execution would have
improved in 40 years...but it hasn't. If anything, the crappy POS
clamp on the typical Roadmaster is so unutterably awful that the only
way to get the seat to stay at the desired angle is to tack-weld the
clamp sections together after positioning the seat, or replace the
clamp with a better one, or replace the seatpost with one that uses a
better type of clamp.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
jim beam
not trolling [sic], you didn't read or understand the article and are
not familiar with the prevalence of this kind of lawsuit.
Werehatrack
<bay_bri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's a nitpick. A fair nitpick, really, because one of the marks of a
troll is posting an article with a subject line that's not really
accurate for the topic. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it now,
unless someone decides that the actual topic merits a separate thread.
Werehatrack
<rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Dec 2005 13:51:03 -0600, Tim McNamara
><tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>>I'm always amazed that people are surprised when they don't know how
>>to use something, don't exert any effort to learn, and then get hurt
>>when they use the thing.
>
>In the case of the bicycle, it's viewed as a "what's to learn?"
>situation. The fact that the bikes today look pretty much like the
>ones of 20 or 40 (or more) years ago lulls the buyers into a sense of
>familiarity. While there are bikes with the level of simplicity that
>was common in the bikes of the '70s and prior, many current bikes have
>a number of new and (to those who have not kept up) unfamiliar ways to
>trip up the unwary.
This brings to mind an issue that is only tangentially related, but is
relevant in a way. When I was a lad, I recall that a good bit of one
afternoon during the first week of the 3rd grade was devoted to the
subject of bike safety. First- and second-graders weren't supposed to
ride bikes to school, but one of the marks that separated the
third-graders from the rest was that they usually did, at least at my
school. Ergo, the school brought in a generic Officer Friendly to
deliver the Bike Safety Lecture, complete with pictures and diagrams
and a short film. Bike maintenance wasn't a topic; most of the kids
were riding one-speed coaster-brake bikes, and beyond the occasional
flat tire, they seldom did anything more than oil the chain if it got
stiff or squeaky, and install a new set of streamers on the handlebars
when the old ones got too ratty. (Yes, it was *that* long ago.)
A quick poll of some of my daughter's acquaintances reveals that
apparently no similar safety lecture takes place today around here,
and that the vast majority of students do not ride a bike to school in
any event. A cruise past the nearest elementary and middle schools
reveals less bike rack capacity at the three of them (taken together)
than was present at my rather small elementary school in the early
'60s. The middle school, in fact, had no bike rack at all, as far as
I could see.
I recall when and why one of my schools' populations stopped riding
bikes. It was in 1966, and due to redistricting, the bike theft rate
at that school went from near zero to overwhelming at the start of the
fall semester. After the third day of school, almost none of the kids
was riding a bike anymore, many because they no longer had one, and
many more because they didn't want to join that group. I was lucky;
mine was locked, and just got vandalized badly on the first day...but
I was on foot from day two onward.
I have to wonder how much of the shift away from the bike as a school
transport vehicle nationwide is attributable to an increase in thefts,
and when the shifts took place. I doubt that there's any place where
formal analysis of this has been done, however.
Ted Bennett
This has been noticed and bemoaned by those who are concerned about the
lack of activity among kids ( along with most other people in the USA).
There are some good efforts afoot to remedy the situation, and you can
read about it by Googling "safe routes to school".
At my kid's school, two or three bikes are parked outside on any given
day. And this is in bike-friendly Portland. A lot of this distressing
trend can be chalked up to parents' fears of danger, from traffic to
abduction to theft.
--
Ted Bennett
Michael Press
Werehatrack <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote:
> On 10 Dec 2005 17:28:09 -0800, "bay_bri...@yahoo.com"
> <bay_bri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >jim beam wrote:
> >>>
> >> therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
> >> deliberate use of a misleading title.
> >
> >Um, no, the article was forwarded because some might it interesting.
> >
> >On the other hand, if flaming someone over the title of their posting
> >isn't a troll, then I don't know what is.
>
> It's a nitpick. A fair nitpick, really, because one of the marks of a
> troll is posting an article with a subject line that's not really
> accurate for the topic. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it now,
> unless someone decides that the actual topic merits a separate thread.
Can always change the title.
--
Michael Press
jtaylor
"Werehatrack" <rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net> wrote in message
news:30rmp1lu11ik9f9ca...@4ax.com...
> The claim that lbs bikes have resale value while retailer bikes have
> none is an apples-and-oranges comparison at best. On the one hand, an
> expensive lbs bike has no factually similar retail-store unit for
> comparison, but a low-end lbs bike will bring little more if resold
> several years later than its cheaper Wal-Mart cousins; I see plenty of
> older lbs bikes at Goodwill for $20 or less right next to
> flashier-looking Roadmasters that are tagged at a higher price...and
> all of them will find a buyer. Which is the better return on
> investment; a $600 bike that sells for $200 four years later, or a
> $200 bike that sells for $25 four years later? The depreciation is
> less with the cheaper unit
You need to works on your sums a bit more; the figures you pulled out of the
air say the opposite of what you claim they do.
Andy B.
"damyth" <mdk.10...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
> Where is this bushing that the
> article alludes to?
>
The article does not allude to the bushing.
Dan
"Andy B." <wat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hu6dnSYO3evFsQHe...@comcast.com...
"He criticized the manufacturer's choice of materials for the
quick-release lever, testifying that a soft *bushing* was insufficient to
(PeteCresswell)
>I have to wonder how much of the shift away from the bike as a school
>transport vehicle nationwide is attributable to an increase in thefts,
Also, at least around here, there's been a series of school district
consolidations so that more kids are going to bigger schools further away.
Combine that with roads that have no shoulder and people routinely going 50+ in
35mph zones while talking on cell phones and you've probably got one more
reason.
I rode or walked to/from school in West Chester Pa every single day until I was
old enough to get a motorbike - and then I rode that.
Now we live nearby in Paoli. Conestoga High School and Tredryffrin Middle
School are about the same distance away as West Chester Junior/Senior High
School was when I was a kid: reasonably close - in spite of what I said about
consolidation.
In fact, the route from our house to those two schools is actually much less
dangerous than most around here... but still, I'd consider it too dangerous for
a kid to ride a bike to/from school every day. Some of it's not too bad, but
there are a couple of stretches where there's just no place to hide when
somebody comes barreling along at 60+ as they do in one 25 mph zone.
On other roads, the roadside brush is worn away in the shape of the average car.
If most kids in both schools rode maybe there'd be some safety in numbers - but
most don't and there isn't.
--
PeteCresswell
Andy B.
"Dan" <banquo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11poc4s...@corp.supernews.com...
That is a statement, not an allusion.
Andy B.
Actually to be more accurate, the bushing is referred to, not alluded to.
Leo Lichtman
"Andy B." wrote: That is a statement, not an allusion.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Is it an allusion or reality?
Leo Lichtman
"(PeteCresswell)" wrote: (clip) On other roads, the roadside brush is worn
>
> If most kids in both schools rode maybe there'd be some safety in
> numbers - but most don't and there isn't.
No, I am afraid that the school population would be similarly worn away.
Andy B.
"Leo Lichtman" <l.lic...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:euYmf.265120$zb5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Andy B." wrote: That is a statement, not an allusion.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Is it an allusion or reality?
AAAArrrgggg!
Jay Beattie
you been around here long enough to know that!
By the way, the Portland Schoold District also has ride/walk to school
day to encourage kids to get off their butts. My ten year old son
rides to school when the urge strikes, but that is only on occaision.
He has a couple of short, 10% climbs which he finds daunting. He has a
pretty clear route to school on back roads. Many of the schools around
here are on arterials with no shoulders.
As for the original post, the only thing I find unusual about the story
is the fact that the case is going to trial. These sort of cases
usually settle, or if someone is holding out for a ton of dough, you
admit liability and fight damages. There must be a defense that is not
apparent in the story, or the importer is getting bad legal advice. --
Jay Beattie.
Werehatrack
The expensive bike lost $400 in value, while the cheap one lost $175.
Although the *percentage* of depreciation is less for the more
expensive unit, the *net* depreciation is smaller for the cheaper one.
Thus the net out-of-pocket loss is much smaller if the essentially
disposable unit is bought. For two things that presumably were doing
the same task, unless there's some other reason for the additional
$225 in depreciation to be a bargain, that makes the cheap bike a much
better deal.
This is also the math which has made expensive watches no bargain. A
genuine Rolex worn by someone who works in an energetic environment
(i.e., somebody who isn't deskbound and sedentary) will need servicing
or repair at least once a year as a result of various mishaps[1],
while a cheap plastic-case digital will run for over a year on its
original battery for less than one-fourth the cost of the Rolex's
annual fixup, and keep better time in the bargain. This is nothing
new; back in the '60s, Timex essentially dstroyed the market for the
traditional watch brands by making a cheap, durable clockwork watch
which cost less to replace than to repair even then. At the time,
they were making them in Great Britain, and I don't mean Hong Kong. A
cheap pair of shoes costs less than the price of re-soling a pair of
expensive ones, and the soles are at least as durable.
[1] Two acquaintances and a close friend all have related the same
tales of woe over their prized Rolexes, and two of the three
eventually resorted to wearing cheap imitations for daily use while
keeping the real one safely tucked away in a drawer at home. None of
the three spends less per year on maintaining the presence of a
functional wrist-mounted timekeeping device than I do, and I use
whatever is on sale for under $10 when the previous one fails. I
replace a daily-wear watch about once every two years. I also have
one vintage wind-up Timex with an inlaid Navaho sterling silver band
which I use for social occasions; the band cost several times the
price of the watch originally, but the antisnobbery value of it has
actually been the source of some admiring remarks on those rare
occasions when I have to suffer the presence of Moneyed Persons.
bay_bri...@yahoo.com
>
> It's a nitpick. A fair nitpick, really, because one of the marks of a
> troll is posting an article with a subject line that's not really
> accurate for the topic.
What you are describing is the classic viscious circle, where long-
time forum members develop a pavlovian response to key
phrases, jumping down someone's throat at the first whiff of
a troll (newbies, not familiar with the social norms of a forum, are
especially susceptible to this form of flaming). Indeed, one very
devious form of trolling is to disingenously label someone a 'troll'
over pedantics.
A Muzi
>>>Where is this bushing that the
>>>article alludes to?
> "Andy B." <wat...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hu6dnSYO3evFsQHe...@comcast.com...
>>The article does not allude to the bushing.
Dan wrote:
> "He criticized the manufacturer's choice of materials for the
> quick-release lever, testifying that a soft *bushing* was insufficient to
> hold the lever in a locked position."
The 'bushing' is a nylon washer with a semicircular scallop
on the outside face where the aluminum lever cam bears.
Looks for all the world like a nylon verison of a brake
seating pad - something which at one time fit between the
flat base of a caliper and the round brake bridge.
If one attempts to close such a system without lubrication
at any reasonably tight setting, the lever bends before the
skewer closes.
These skewers don't lock either. That is to say the cam
doesn't go over center. I don't believe it's inherent in the
design, just that no one bothered.
Phil, Squid-in-Training
>>> I see plenty
>>> of older lbs bikes at Goodwill for $20 or less right next to
>>> flashier-looking Roadmasters that are tagged at a higher price
Then you said:
> The expensive bike lost $400 in value, while the cheap one lost $175.
I think that's the point in contention.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Werehatrack
By "older" I mean "from the 1980s"; while some of the local shops will
try to get $200+ for a used bike that's more than four years old which
sold for under $800 new, the majority won't even bother to put such a
unit on the floor[1]. Depreciation of 75% in four years seems common
in the $400-$800 price range units locally. Yes, a name-brand bike
from a good maker will have a higher reslae value for a while, but the
higher starting price seldom equates to a better investment if *resale
value* is the criterion since essentially *all* bikes lose value.
This is not an investment in the form of "get a financial return",
it's an investment in getting good service for the money. It is
extremely easy to overspend when doing that.
[1] There is at least one flagrant exception to this; one shop has a
selection of 5 to 8-year-old units with price tags on them in the area
of just under half to two-thirds the price of the current equivalent
unit. These are bikes that they've gone through extensively, with new
bearings, tires, chain, and brake pads, and usually new cassette and
possibly some new front sprockets. I am convinced that part of the
reason that they keep them around is as a putative proof that their
bikes hold value...but it's a specious argument in point of fact.
Most of the bikes in that display are actually abandoned repair ticket
units which the shop is really trying to sell to recover the costs
that they've got stuck in them. OTOH, I wouldn't hesitate to
recommend that someone buy one of them, because they're actually just
what they're represented as being; units which aren't new, but which
have been thoroughly serviced and are ready to deliver a good, long
period of trouble-free service.
Werehatrack
<phil_leeIHEA...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I should have clarified that at the local Goodwill stores, pricing
isn't according to value, it's entirely according to appearance. They
often try to sell used Roadmasters for *more* than the current price
of the equivalent new unit at Wal-Mart...and after a couple of weeks,
they mark them down, and then mark them down again, until somebody
buys them. *Any* bike that can be ridden away will sell if they price
it at $15 to $20. At garage sales, once again, used bikes typically
bring less than $30, often down as low as $5, pretty much regardless
of brand. At *bike shops*, pricing is more original-value-driven, and
the Roadmaster/Murray/Huffy types will simply not be present. For
purposes of comparing depreciation, I used the most optimistic numbers
for the lbs bike in the second comparison. The likely resale value of
an lbs bike is higher if sold at a bike shop or via a classified ad
rather than at Goodwill or a garage sale because in those venues, the
lbs bike fares even worse than the cheap ones in most cases. And
while Goodwill may *try* to get $75 for a used Roadmaster Mt Climber
(as one recently attempted to do), that doesn't mean that they'll be
successful in the attempt. OTOH, one seldom sees lbs bikes of less
than 10-year-old vintage at either Goodwill or the other thrift shops.
Alex Rodriguez
bay_bri...@yahoo.com says...
>Anderson testified that the bicycles' quick-release system, which is
>designed to hold the front-wheel axle to the frame and allow the wheel
>to be easily removed for repairs or transport, was "inappropriate" for
>children and called the device "defective" in its design.
What a schmuck. Just because the device is inappropriate for children does
not make it defective.
----------------
Alex
Alex Rodriguez
>I have no doubt that is possible for a cheap manufacturer to turn out a
>dangerous quick release. If it releases unexpectedly while riding, it is
>probably dangerous.
The way the article was written he seems to come off as he is saying that
simply because QR's are inappropriate for childs bikes, that alone makes them
defective. If the QR's are defective, the article should have included that
part of the testimony.
---------------
Alex
Alex Rodriguez
rau...@earthWEEDSlink.net says...
>The claim that lbs bikes have resale value while retailer bikes have
>none is an apples-and-oranges comparison at best. On the one hand, an
>expensive lbs bike has no factually similar retail-store unit for
>comparison, but a low-end lbs bike will bring little more if resold
>several years later than its cheaper Wal-Mart cousins; I see plenty of
>older lbs bikes at Goodwill for $20 or less right next to
>flashier-looking Roadmasters that are tagged at a higher price...and
>all of them will find a buyer. Which is the better return on
>investment; a $600 bike that sells for $200 four years later, or a
>$200 bike that sells for $25 four years later? The depreciation is
>less with the cheaper unit, and if the rider's needs are such that the
>cheaper unit will do the job, the $600 expenditure produces no
>savings.
You are looking at it the wrong way. I look at it at a cost per mile ridden.
I can guarantee you that the nicer bikes have a lower cost per mile ridden than
the cheap bikes.
---------------
Alex
Alex Rodriguez
dedendadd...@webtv.net says...
>I'm really beginng to think that maybe they shouldn't put QR's on bikes
>that cost less that what an experienced cyclist would bother paying for
>a bike.
Not a good idea. It would be better if you don't put a QR on a bike where the
salesperson can't, or won't, take the time to show the buyer how to use the QR
properly.
>How many of these, I wonder, are the cause of bad instalation (A.K.A.
>common stupitidity), not design?
Not necessarily stupidity if the user is not aware of how a QR works.
----------------
Alex
Michael Press
Alex Rodriguez <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote:
How far up the price range?
$1000 off the floor?
$1500 off the floor?
$2000 off the floor?
$2500 off the floor?
What about built-to-order bicycles?
--
Michael Press
(PeteCresswell)
>I'm really beginng to think that maybe they shouldn't put QR's on bikes
>that cost less that what an experienced cyclist would bother paying for
>a bike.
Somebody tell me again why QR's are such an improvement?
I guess they make marginally faster to pull the wheels and throw a bike into the
car, but I've got bikes that go both ways and when I'm changing a flat I can't
see much diff.
Never timed it, but I'm thinking a minute for the front wheel and 20 seconds max
for the rear wheel on my FS/QRs vs the bolts/axles on my old Stumpie.
--
PeteCresswell
Phil, Squid-in-Training
"Buyer's guilt" is more like it.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
(PeteCresswell)
>a minute for the front wheel
And, come to think of it, it would be more like 20 seconds with a through-axle
than with the retainers on the Stumpie. More like the diff between rotating the
skewer cam 4-5 times to get past the lawyer lips and rotating one bolt enough
times to get it off and then yanking the axle.
--
PeteCresswell
Patrick Lamb
wrote:
>Somebody tell me again why QR's are such an improvement?
>
>I guess they make marginally faster to pull the wheels and throw a bike into the
>car, but I've got bikes that go both ways and when I'm changing a flat I can't
>see much diff.
>
>Never timed it, but I'm thinking a minute for the front wheel and 20 seconds max
>for the rear wheel on my FS/QRs vs the bolts/axles on my old Stumpie.
One or two less big, heavy tools to get the nuts off.
When used without lawyer lips, makes a big difference in time;
especially if you have to dig through a (non-professional) toolbox to
find the right wrench.
Pat
Email address works as is.
Werehatrack
It all presumes that an expensive bike will be ridden more than a
cheap bike. That's not always a good assumption. The samples of both
which have come through here seem to indicate that the cheap bikes
often get more use (and less care) than the expensive ones...but I
don't get any *really* high-cost bikes in any event, so the data I
have applies only to low and midrange lbs units.
A bike which is ridden regularly will not be in a thrift store,
whether it's cheap or expensive. A bike that's not being ridden
regularly will often end up there, however, whether it was ridden
regularly at some previous time or not. Sometimes they're like new,
sometimes obviously ridden hard and then neglected for years. More
drop-frame bikes show up than any other category, and those are more
often in a near-zero-wear state but with tires that have rotted.
There are other channels through which I've acquired used bikes as
well, and those are where I've seen the pattern of cheap bikes getting
ridden to death.
(PeteCresswell)
>One or two less big, heavy tools to get the nuts off.
One in my case. A stubby 15 mil box wrench. Weighs 90 grams.
Come to think of it, weight might be the determining factor for most.
Not a show-stopper for me. OTOH, my FS weighs 32 lbs....
--
PeteCresswell
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>[1] One place where I've consistently seen a really annoying
>shortcoming in the department-store bikes is in the area of the seat
>mounting clamp. This isn't new; I first battled with them in the
>'60s, and had hoped that either the design or its execution would have
>improved in 40 years...but it hasn't. If anything, the crappy POS
>clamp on the typical Roadmaster is so unutterably awful that the only
>way to get the seat to stay at the desired angle is to tack-weld the
>clamp sections together after positioning the seat, or replace the
>clamp with a better one, or replace the seatpost with one that uses a
>better type of clamp.
Are they crappy versions of the post-style clamp, or do you just not know
to crank the bolt down *really* hard? The problem with the post-style
clamps is that once you don't crank it down hard enough and it slips a
tooth, it's time for a new clamp, even though it may seem like you just
need to get it tighter. Once the tips of those serrations are rounded off,
which they will the very first time it slips, they're never coming back.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>The way the article was written he seems to come off as he is saying that
>simply because QR's are inappropriate for childs bikes, that alone makes them
>defective. If the QR's are defective, the article should have included that
>part of the testimony.
Actually, it clearly refers to open-cam QRs rather than the standard
closed-cam ones.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>In article <1134235852.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
But being a cheap-ass open-cam QR *does* make it defective.
Jasper
Peter Cole
>
> A quick poll of some of my daughter's acquaintances reveals that
> apparently no similar safety lecture takes place today around here,
> and that the vast majority of students do not ride a bike to school in
> any event. A cruise past the nearest elementary and middle schools
> reveals less bike rack capacity at the three of them (taken together)
> than was present at my rather small elementary school in the early
> '60s. The middle school, in fact, had no bike rack at all, as far as
> I could see.
I don't know how representative it is, but my children's elementary
school does have a 1-session "bike safety day" which includes a brief
ride around the neighborhood with a cop and parent volunteer (my wife,
for a few years). Ironically, children are not allowed to ride to school
(official policy), with officials citing safety concerns.
> I recall when and why one of my schools' populations stopped riding
> bikes. It was in 1966, and due to redistricting, the bike theft rate
> at that school went from near zero to overwhelming
>
> I have to wonder how much of the shift away from the bike as a school
> transport vehicle nationwide is attributable to an increase in thefts,
My son has frequently cycled to high school, no thefts, but he did have
a rear wheel vandalized (destroyed), so I think theft and vandalism is
still an issue, as it was in my day, when bike thefts from school were
common, I had one bike stolen at college. The "solution" these days
seems to be disposable mart-bikes, you can see racks of them at local
colleges. Nobody around here (Boston/Newton) rides bikes to elementary,
middle or high school. There are perhaps a dozen bikes at the high
school (2,000+ students) -- hundreds of student cars, though.
When I was a kid, we just walked everywhere.
Peter Cole
>
> If most kids in both schools rode maybe there'd be some safety in numbers - but
> most don't and there isn't.
A very real phenomenon is that more cyclists on the road makes the road
safer. When cyclists are rarely encountered motorists seem to lose the
ability to deal with/anticipate them.
Peter Cole
>
> [1] Two acquaintances and a close friend all have related the same
> tales of woe over their prized Rolexes, and two of the three
> eventually resorted to wearing cheap imitations for daily use while
> keeping the real one safely tucked away in a drawer at home. None of
> the three spends less per year on maintaining the presence of a
> functional wrist-mounted timekeeping device than I do, and I use
> whatever is on sale for under $10 when the previous one fails. I
> replace a daily-wear watch about once every two years.
I didn't find a Rolex to be quite so delicate, although (despite the
diving and mountain climbing ads) it's really just a piece of jewelery.
When I bought a $50 Casio ("G-shock"), the kid behind the counter asked
why I was wasting the money when I could get a Timex for half. I replied
that it would last a lot longer. That was 20 years (and a few bands)
ago. All my bikes are "Casios", I don't have a "Rolex" one, though most
of the guys I ride with do.
Patrick Lamb
wrote:
>
>I guess they make marginally faster to pull the wheels and throw a bike into the
>car, but I've got bikes that go both ways and when I'm changing a flat I can't
>see much diff.
>
>Never timed it, but I'm thinking a minute for the front wheel and 20 seconds max
>for the rear wheel on my FS/QRs vs the bolts/axles on my old Stumpie.
One or two less big, heavy tools to get the nuts off.
When used without lawyer lips, makes a big difference in time;
Alex Rodriguez
says...
Yes, but that design is not inherently defective. I've used this type of
QR with no problems. Most of my wheels use shimano QR's because they are
a better design.
------------
Alex
Alex Rodriguez
a wrnech big enough to have leverage to get a nut on and off is going to be
long enough to not fit into most under seat bags. Having one in the back
pocket of my jersey is uncomfortable. When properly used, a QR works well
at holding a wheel in place.
------------
Alex
Alex Rodriguez
says...
Not necessarily. User error is probably to blame.
-----------
Alex
Michael Press
Alex Rodriguez <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote:
> In article <bfmtp1p94dkoarnak...@4ax.com>, jas...@jjanssen.org
> says...
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 17:01:38 -0500, Alex Rodriguez <ad...@columbia.edu>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>In article <1134235852.2...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>bay_bri...@yahoo.com says...
> >>
> >>>Anderson testified that the bicycles' quick-release system, which is
> >>>designed to hold the front-wheel axle to the frame and allow the wheel
> >>>to be easily removed for repairs or transport, was "inappropriate" for
> >>>children and called the device "defective" in its design.
> >>
> >>What a schmuck. Just because the device is inappropriate for children does
> >>not make it defective.
> >
> >But being a cheap-ass open-cam QR *does* make it defective.
>
> Not necessarily. User error is probably to blame.
I disagree. It is not user error when the seller takes
money for a bad design that is rendered dangerous when
used by persons who do not know and are not told the
proper procedure and risks; users who do not know how to
use even a well-designed quick-release.
--
Michael Press
Jay Beattie
"Alex Rodriguez" <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote in message
news:dnn48p$97q$8...@newsmaster.cc.columbia.edu...
Do you have a ten year old? If not, I will lend you mine so you
get the idea of how he and his cohorts neglect and sometimes
mistreat bikes. When it comes to kids, it makes absolute sense to
use wheel retention devices and not to rely on QRs alone because
kids will snag QRs, ignore them if they start coming open and
will be inattentive because that's what they do best. -- Jay
Beattie.
Alex Rodriguez
says...
>Do you have a ten year old? If not, I will lend you mine so you
>get the idea of how he and his cohorts neglect and sometimes
>mistreat bikes. When it comes to kids, it makes absolute sense to
>use wheel retention devices and not to rely on QRs alone because
>kids will snag QRs, ignore them if they start coming open and
>will be inattentive because that's what they do best. \
I don't doubt it. But that is user error.
-------------
Alex
damyth
This case history (from the lower courts) frightens me:
http://www.bikeleague.org/index.cfm
(second story)
The ruling itself (from the KY supreme court) goes into some detail
regarding the case history and is a very interesting read:
http://162.114.92.72/Opinions/2004-SC-000131-DG.pdf
"Trial by jury of peers" apparently does not include bicyclists, only
drivers apparently. The only encouraging part of this story was the
Supreme Court of KY did find that the driver was at fault.
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>In article <bfmtp1p94dkoarnak...@4ax.com>, jas...@jjanssen.org
>says...
>>>
>>>What a schmuck. Just because the device is inappropriate for children does
>>>not make it defective.
>>
>>But being a cheap-ass open-cam QR *does* make it defective.
>
>Not necessarily. User error is probably to blame.
Look, even if all the specific incidents involved were due to reasonable
user error (which is still Wal-Mart's problem, incidentally, since they
don't deliver a manual or a safety lecture to go with them), that doesn't
make the QRs non-defective.
Jasper
Jasper Janssen
wrote:
>In article <11pufjt...@corp.supernews.com>, jbea...@lindsayhart.com
No, it's not. It's expected user behaviour. These are not bikes designed
to be ridden by adults or kids who are into bicycles, they are bike shaped
objects very much intended to be seen as toys for children.
Jasper
jobst....@stanfordalumni.org
>>> Do you have a ten year old? If not, I will lend you mine so you
>>> get the idea of how he and his cohorts neglect and sometimes
>>> mistreat bikes. When it comes to kids, it makes absolute sense to
>>> use wheel retention devices and not to rely on QRs alone because
>>> kids will snag QRs, ignore them if they start coming open and will
>>> be inattentive because that's what they do best.
>> I don't doubt it. But that is user error.
> No, it's not. It's expected user behaviour. These are not bikes
> designed to be ridden by adults or kids who are into bicycles, they
> are bike shaped objects very much intended to be seen as toys for
> children.
I agree. It's like the highway engineers who design curves on which
people often crash and defend their work with the excuse that the
curvature is safe by road specifications and the speed limit. As I
pointed out, the three most glaring incidents of such roads caused
deaths and had to wait years for a change of administration before the
curves were changed and crashes ceased. Those WERE dangerous curves
by definition, a curve on which people often crash, the same as a QR
that often fails to protect the user.
If the design is often misused by users, it IS faulty.
Jobst Brandt
Michael Press
Alex Rodriguez <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote:
It is not user error by the ten year old. It is user error
by the retail seller, and sometimes the parent.
--
Michael Press
Alex Rodriguez
ja...@abc.net says...
>It is not user error by the ten year old. It is user error
>by the retail seller, and sometimes the parent.
If the retailer is to blame, then so is the parent. A 10 year old is old
enough to learn how to use a quick release. It is not a complicated device.
----------------
Alex
Michael Press
Alex Rodriguez <ad...@columbia.edu> wrote:
I am not arguing that it is complicated. Were quick
release mechanisms common when I was ten years old the
kids I associated with all would have had them and known
exactly how to use them.
I argue that the retailer does not understand them, sells
a bad (=dangerous) design to parents who also do not
understand them. The retailer has a responsibility to the
parent. This is why I waffle on the parent's
responsibility; typically I am a hard-liner in this
respect.
--
Michael Press