$7M Lawsuit
John - Forester
As the principal expert witness in the no headlamp case against
Derby Cycles I will explain the logic of the case. First the accident
facts. Collin Johnson was a high-school student with an evening job
at McDonalds. He bought a Nishiki bicycle, designed and imported by
Derby, specifically to ride to and from work. His route took him over
some hills with grades as much as 8%. While descending one such hill
after midnight, riding without a headlamp, a jeep coming the other
way turned left in front of him because the motorist did not see him.
He is now physically, mentally and emotionally disabled for life.
These facts are undisputed. The question is why Johnson, who was a
smart boy, was riding without a headlamp.
Johnson's act was the logical result of the acts of the American
bicycle industry over the last 25 years. He believed that having the
all-reflector system (10 reflectors) on his bicycle, as is required
by law (both state and federal), made it safe to ride at night. 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. At that time I predicted
that accidents like Johnson's would result from that regulation.
As a result of the promotion of the all-reflector system on
bicycles (including its requirement by law), and of independent
reflectorized products, most Americans believe that the all-reflector
system is adequate for nighttime cycling safety. A survey made of
Johnson's peers by a recognized university psychologist showed that
80% of them believed that, and that of those who rode a bicycle at
night 75% of them did not use a headlamp. Only the precise values for
this are new; we've all seen similar proportions for decades.
Derby Cycles, like all bicycle manufacturers selling in the USA,
is required by law to provide booklets with their bicycles giving the
appropriate use and safety instructions. The safety instructions in
Derby's booklets were ineffective; some of it was correct and some
was wrong; none of it was worded in an effective manner. As far as
nighttime safety was concerned, they did say "Have white light on
front and danger signal on rear for night riding," but they had a
whole page on reflectors plus another statement "Reflectors: Should
be securely fastened and positioned for bicycle identification at
night time from front, rear, and lateral visibility. Damaged units
should be promptly replaced." The major information about lights
appeared on the page titled "Off-Road Etiquette and Safety Tips," and
said: "Night Riding Safety: At night, always use a working headlight
and taillight, preferably one using a halogen bulb in both front and
rear light. Best are lights with a battery pack so have lights when
the bike isn't moving, as at a stoplight. Always wear reflective
clothing, a reflective stripe on you (sic) helmet and light colored
clothing. Use reflectors on front and rear of you bike and on pedals
and wheels." Given a mish-mash of instructions like this (and this is
rather typical of many such booklets by other manufacturers), and the
common belief that such instructions have fostered in the past, it is
no wonder that they have no significant effect on behavior. For that
matter, the officials of Derby Cycles showed that they had no idea of
what the requirements for nighttime safety are and they testified
that they relied on the all-reflector system for providing the
necessary nighttime protection.
The only wording that could possibly be effective in the present
mileau is one that says that THIS BICYCLE IS EQUIPPED WITH 10
REFLECTORS ONLY BECAUSE THE LAW REQUIRES IT. THEY WILL NOT MAKE YOU
SAFE AT NIGHT. IN MANY NIGHTTIME ACCIDENT SITUATIONS MOTORISTS CAN'T
SEE REFLECTORS, BUT THEY CAN ALWAYS SEE HEADLAMPS. WHEN CYCLING AT
NIGHT YOU MUST, FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY, USE A FRONT HEADLAMP AND A LARGE
REAR REFLECTOR WITH, IF YOUR STATE REQUIRES ONE, A REAR LAMP AS WELL.
For whatever reason, Derby did not provide that information. That
is why their product was found defective in a way that caused
Johnson's accident, and therefore why they were found liable for his
injuries.
I sincerely hope that this case will cause the industry to change
its tune. I sincerely hope that this case will also cause the federal
government, and the states who have been coerced by the industry,
using the threat of federal preemption, into changing their
regulations.
The case had many other interesting engineering aspects which I
may go into in another place.
JFor...@cup.portal.com John Forester
726 Madrone Ave
408-734-9426 Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
Andy Michael USGS Guest
> NO HEADLAMP WINS JUDGEMENT AGAINST DERBY CYCLES
>
> As the principal expert witness in the no headlamp case against
>Derby Cycles I will explain the logic of the case. First the accident
First, I would like to thank John for posting this information and,
although I find the instructions adequate, I can't dispute the
statistics. Because John is so influential I thought I would
make some comments. If better warnings are the only goal I don't
mind. But I do mind if there is a movement to requre the sale of
lights on every bicycle. Many of the best (and highest priced)
lighting systems are designed for esy bike to bike transfer.
The NiteRider Cyclops that I just bought certainly qualifies on
these counts. I would hate to see a change to a law that gets
bikes sold with either lousy inadequate lights (perhaps bright
but flimsy) or have their prices jacked up further with expensive
ones that should be transferable.
Another point is that the warnings will only work if people
bother to read them. Before being sure that the wording is
at fault I would be interested to know what percentage of
the youths surveyed had read the instructions. Perhaps the
problem with their attitudes isn't the wording but their own
behavior.
Andy
John Tobin
> NO HEADLAMP WINS JUDGEMENT AGAINST DERBY CYCLES
> As the principal expert witness in the no headlamp case against
>Derby Cycles I will explain the logic of the case. First the accident
>facts. Collin Johnson was a high-school student with an evening job
>at McDonalds. He bought a Nishiki bicycle, designed and imported by
>Derby, specifically to ride to and from work. His route took him over
>some hills with grades as much as 8%. While descending one such hill
>after midnight, riding without a headlamp, a jeep coming the other
>way turned left in front of him because the motorist did not see him.
>He is now physically, mentally and emotionally disabled for life.
>These facts are undisputed. The question is why Johnson, who was a
>smart boy, was riding without a headlamp.
He may have been a smart boy, but he had no common sense. It doesn't take
a lot of intelligence to realize that riding a bike at night is
dangerous, and that using a light is the only sensible thing to do.
There it is; you yourself admit that in the safety instructions that
Derby says that a headlight is required! And you still say that they are
at fault for this accident?
I admit, that this would be somewhat clearer. And no doubt, that is what
they will say in the future--because it will protect them from liability.
The truth is that no one reads these safety statements anyway. Do you
really think that most teenage boys that get a bike sit down and read
the safety instructions word for word? The sad fact of the matter is,
that if the brocure had read as you indicate, this individual would
probably still have had his accident; he just wouldn't have had any basis
for suing Derby.
> For whatever reason, Derby did not provide that information. That
>is why their product was found defective in a way that caused
>Johnson's accident, and therefore why they were found liable for his
>injuries.
> I sincerely hope that this case will cause the industry to change
>its tune. I sincerely hope that this case will also cause the federal
>government, and the states who have been coerced by the industry,
>using the threat of federal preemption, into changing their
>regulations.
> The case had many other interesting engineering aspects which I
>may go into in another place.
>JFor...@cup.portal.com John Forester
> 726 Madrone Ave
>408-734-9426 Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
So what do you propose? That we require all bikes to be sold with lights?
Is this what we really want? I certainly don't. And then will the
manufacturer be liable when the batteries run down? So then do we sell
bikes without reflectors, since they don't provide true protection at
night? But in fact there may have been lives saved by having reflectors.
Not having any reflectors seems like a step towards less safety, not more.
Sure, having better safety instructions is a step in the right
direction, but if you think that many people really read or take these
things seriously, you are sadly mistaken.
This was a tragic case, but it wasn't Derby cycles' fault that the
accident occurred.
The real problem here is a lack of appropriate education, in the home and in
the school; pinning the problem on one particular bike manufacturer may
have helped your client win some money, but it didn't have much to do
with justice. The real solutions, i'm afraid, are not to be found in a
courtroom, and will require a lot of work over a long period of time.
--John
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Tobin (jto...@world.std.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Niebur
> NO HEADLAMP WINS JUDGEMENT AGAINST DERBY CYCLES
> As the principal expert witness in the no headlamp case against
>Derby Cycles I will explain the logic of the case. First the accident
>facts. Collin Johnson was a high-school student with an evening job
>at McDonalds. He bought a Nishiki bicycle, designed and imported by
>Derby, specifically to ride to and from work. His route took him over
>some hills with grades as much as 8%. While descending one such hill
>after midnight, riding without a headlamp, a jeep coming the other
>way turned left in front of him because the motorist did not see him.
>He is now physically, mentally and emotionally disabled for life.
>These facts are undisputed. The question is why Johnson, who was a
>smart boy, was riding without a headlamp.
^^^^^^^^^
I doubt it. If he was smart, he would have had a light. If he was smart,
he would have seen the Jeep coming. For God's sake, in broad daylight,
i assume that a vehicle doesn't see me. And i assume that if he does
see me, he isn't going to stop for me. It is a simple equation, a bicycle
is no match for a car. Regardless of the law, inteligence dictates that
we always give up the right of way.
I think that as with most cases of this type, the jury didn't consider
right and wrong. They considered a 17 year old boy with permanent injuries
trying to get money from an importer of Japanese bicycles.
> As a result of the promotion of the all-reflector system on
>bicycles (including its requirement by law), and of independent
>reflectorized products, most Americans believe that the all-reflector
>system is adequate for nighttime cycling safety. A survey made of
>Johnson's peers by a recognized university psychologist showed that
>80% of them believed that, and that of those who rode a bicycle at
>night 75% of them did not use a headlamp. Only the precise values for
>this are new; we've all seen similar proportions for decades.
> Derby Cycles, like all bicycle manufacturers selling in the USA,
>is required by law to provide booklets with their bicycles giving the
>appropriate use and safety instructions. The safety instructions in
>Derby's booklets were ineffective; some of it was correct and some
>was wrong; none of it was worded in an effective manner. As far as
>nighttime safety was concerned, they did say "Have white light on
>front and danger signal on rear for night riding," but they had a
This isn't saying clearly to "Have a white light on front"? How much
more clearly can it be said? Did Colin Johnson ever read the safety
manual? Somehow i doubt it.
> The only wording that could possibly be effective in the present
>mileau is one that says that THIS BICYCLE IS EQUIPPED WITH 10
>REFLECTORS ONLY BECAUSE THE LAW REQUIRES IT. THEY WILL NOT MAKE YOU
>SAFE AT NIGHT. IN MANY NIGHTTIME ACCIDENT SITUATIONS MOTORISTS CAN'T
>SEE REFLECTORS, BUT THEY CAN ALWAYS SEE HEADLAMPS. WHEN CYCLING AT
>NIGHT YOU MUST, FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY, USE A FRONT HEADLAMP AND A LARGE
>REAR REFLECTOR WITH, IF YOUR STATE REQUIRES ONE, A REAR LAMP AS WELL.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Why this caveat? Saying that a rear light is only required if your
state requires it is equivalent to saying you only need a front light
if your state requires it.
> For whatever reason, Derby did not provide that information. That
>is why their product was found defective in a way that caused
>Johnson's accident, and therefore why they were found liable for his
>injuries.
I would imagine that they didn't provide it because they assumed that
a "reasonable" person would not expect to be able to ride on public
roads with no lighting.
> I sincerely hope that this case will cause the industry to change
>its tune. I sincerely hope that this case will also cause the federal
>government, and the states who have been coerced by the industry,
>using the threat of federal preemption, into changing their
>regulations.
> The case had many other interesting engineering aspects which I
>may go into in another place.
>JFor...@cup.portal.com John Forester
> 726 Madrone Ave
>408-734-9426 Sunnyvale CA 94086 USA
--
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
Alex D Rodriguez
>In <95...@cup.portal.com> JFor...@cup.portal.com (John - Forester) writes:
>>nighttime safety was concerned, they did say "Have white light on
>>front and danger signal on rear for night riding," but they had a
>
>This isn't saying clearly to "Have a white light on front"? How much
>more clearly can it be said? Did Colin Johnson ever read the safety
>manual? Somehow i doubt it.
Mr. Forester said that this section was in the 'Riding Off road section' of
the safety manual. That's why it is not clear.
------------------
Alex Rodriguez
Les Earnest
Glen Niebur writes:
I doubt it. If he was smart, he would have had a light. If he was smart,
he would have seen the Jeep coming. For God's sake, in broad daylight,
i assume that a vehicle doesn't see me. And i assume that if he does
see me, he isn't going to stop for me.
While it is true that a person who rides at night without lights lacks
common sense, John Forester's point that the government standards
encourage this practice is valid.
The remarks above about daylight riding are nonsense. If you assume
that every oncoming vehicle is going to turn left in front of you, you
dare not ride faster than about 5 MPH and even then it would be
appropriate to be paralyzed by fear.
It is a simple equation, a bicycle is no match for a car. Regardless
of the law, inteligence dictates that we always give up the right of way.
Also, a car is no match for a large truck. I gather that Mr. Neibur
seldom leaves his driveway. Given that he is overwhelmed by this
sense of inferiority, I recommend that he buy a stationary exercise
bike.
--
Les Earnest (L...@cs.Stanford.edu) Phone: 415 941-3984
Computer Science Dept.; Stanford, CA 94305 Fax: 415 941-3934
Glen Niebur
>Regarding the cyclist who was struck at night by a left-turning Jeep,
>Glen Niebur writes:
> I doubt it. If he was smart, he would have had a light. If he was smart,
> he would have seen the Jeep coming. For God's sake, in broad daylight,
> i assume that a vehicle doesn't see me. And i assume that if he does
> see me, he isn't going to stop for me.
>The remarks above about daylight riding are nonsense. If you assume
>that every oncoming vehicle is going to turn left in front of you, you
>dare not ride faster than about 5 MPH and even then it would be
>appropriate to be paralyzed by fear.
I do expect they will turn left if they have their turn signal on. I
am assuming that the motorist used his turn signal, since he was not
sued nor was it mentioned that he didn't use his turn signal. I expect them
to turn left in front of me because it has happened to me several times.
By expecting the driver to turn in front of me, i have managed to avoid them.
The one driver who stopped to see if i was alright/apologize for turning in
front of me said that he didn't see me coming. I was riding well away from
the curb and wearing a white shirt. I believe he didn't see me, i just
want to point out that it wasn't my fault he didn't see me.
> It is a simple equation, a bicycle is no match for a car. Regardless
> of the law, inteligence dictates that we always give up the right of way.
>Also, a car is no match for a large truck. I gather that Mr. Neibur
>seldom leaves his driveway. Given that he is overwhelmed by this
A car is many times more visible than a bike. It takes up a full lane
of the road, and so the analogy is not quite there. At the same time
i do tend to watch for large trucks, as i have seen one make a right
turn over the top of the hood of a very nice sports car whose driver
apparently didn't expect it to do what large trucks often do.
>sense of inferiority, I recommend that he buy a stationary exercise
>bike.
Thanks, i'll give it some thought.
T...@slacvm.slac.stanford.edu
Talk about "MAKE MONEY FAST"!
-tom
Chris Malcolm
>Regarding the cyclist who was struck at night by a left-turning Jeep,
>Glen Niebur writes:
> I doubt it. If he was smart, he would have had a light. If he was smart,
> he would have seen the Jeep coming. For God's sake, in broad daylight,
> i assume that a vehicle doesn't see me. And i assume that if he does
> see me, he isn't going to stop for me.
>The remarks above about daylight riding are nonsense. If you assume
>that every oncoming vehicle is going to turn left in front of you, you
>dare not ride faster than about 5 MPH and even then it would be
>appropriate to be paralyzed by fear.
This is a common fallacy. I _do_ assume that every oncoming vehicle
may turn across my path, and am prepared to take appropriate avoiding
action, yet I _average_ 10mph through congested and hilly city streets
while taking it easy. Nor is it appropriate, when being defensively
cautious like this -- I call it creative paranoia -- to be paralysed
with fear. Like heights, you get used to it. After 40 years of urban
commuting by cycle for at least half of every year without a single
crash of any kind I can confirm that it works.
It's not easy, but it can be done. It depends on a combination of
preserving safety margins, having preplanned escape routes, and having
rehearsed similar situations so often in imagination that in practice
the right reactions occur with instinctive speed.
It's not easy, but the alternative is to play deliberate road roulette
until your number comes up and you finish your journey in agony in an
ambulance.
--
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
Jason O'Rourke
>While it is true that a person who rides at night without lights lacks
>common sense, John Forester's point that the government standards
>encourage this practice is valid.
This is one part of Forester's book that I cannot agree with. If every
bicyclist hit in the dark was entitled to $7 mil because they thought
that reflectors were enough, the money supply of this country would
disappear. Unless there was more to this case, I see little reason
for the settlement. There has to be some level of common sense and
personal responsibilty; else any injury caused in an accident could
be grounds for a multimillion dollar lawsuit. A good number of cities
(the ones I live in) require bikers to use a light at night, and will
give out fix-it tickets. Shouldn't the victim have sued the city then
for negligence?
The 10 point reflector system is ludicrous, but so is collecting
millions from a company that probably did a lousy job writing the
English manual. I don't think I should ask if he was wearing a
helmet either.
It's incidents like this that lead cities and towns to create bills
that harm bikers in the interest of saving them.
Jason O'Rourke
Nick Wilde
In article <95...@cup.portal.com> John - Forester,
JFor...@cup.portal.com writes:
> The only wording that could possibly be effective in the present
> milieu is one that says that THIS BICYCLE IS EQUIPPED WITH 10
> REFLECTORS ONLY BECAUSE THE LAW REQUIRES IT. THEY WILL NOT MAKE YOU
> SAFE AT NIGHT. IN MANY NIGHTTIME ACCIDENT SITUATIONS MOTORISTS CAN'T
> SEE REFLECTORS, BUT THEY CAN ALWAYS SEE HEADLAMPS. WHEN CYCLING AT
> NIGHT YOU MUST, FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY, USE A FRONT HEADLAMP AND A LARGE
> REAR REFLECTOR WITH, IF YOUR STATE REQUIRES ONE, A REAR LAMP AS WELL.
Are you willing to bet your personal net worth on this ? What happens
the first time someone rides blithely down the road at night, not bothering
to keep an eye out for oncoming left turning traffic, and gets whacked
because the auto, for whatever reason, doesn't see them (say the cyclist's
light gets lost in background illumination from a lighted sign).
So, you promised them they should be seen and they weren't.
(BUT THEY CAN ALWAYS SEE HEADLAMPS). Time to sue your butt off.
That's the problem with legislating common sense - the level of
comfort for one person will never be adequate for all people. There will
always be someone who takes you literally at your word and faults you
for it.
-Nick
Eric Geoffrey Vann
l...@SAIL.Stanford.edu writes:
>While it is true that a person who rides at night without lights lacks
>common sense, John Forester's point that the government standards
>encourage this practice is valid.
I suppose that I would not have bothered to write this response, but for
the fact that your sarcasm irritated me. I am mystified as to how
government standards encourage someone to avoid displaying appropriate
caution when operating a vehicle at night.
There is some truth to the fact that were it not for governmental
agencies both here and abroad certain safety items would probably be
unavailable on automobiles. The is especially true of seatbelts and
airbags. It is also true of car designs which provide for a controlled
collapse of the exterior with an interior cage that remains essentially
rigid.
In the case of automobiles were it not for the mandating of such safety
features, automobile manufacturers would probably not install them,
deaming such items to contribute in a negative way to profitability. It
would then be necessary for consumer advocacy groups to go out and
pressure automakers to include such things, and reward those that did
with their business.
Now bicycling is a bit different in this regard. There are few things
that cannot be purchased as aftermarket products, which contribute to
safety.
I for one have the fabled ten reflectors on all four of the bikes that my
wife and I own. In addition I wear a reflective vest (both day and
night), and reflective leg straps, have reflective material on my helmet
and shoes and have two rear mounted blinking red lights always displayed
during nighttime and dawn/dusk riding.
Furthermore I own two sets of lighting. We have NightRider Cyclops
systems mounted to our helmets during rides when we expect to be out in
the dark, and in addition we have Cateye halogen lamps (battery operated)
that remain on the bikes at all times just in case we get caught in
unexpected darkness.
I have little sympathy for most cyclists in Illinois who knowingly ride
down the Illinois Prairie Path at night without any kind of headlight or
taillight. What is more I see these same folks traveling the streets of
my home town Wheaton, IL, with nary a light visible.
You should not need a governmental agency to tell you how to dress
warmly, since if you get a flat on a subzero day, hypothermia in some
places can be fatal. Likewise you should not need a governmental agency
to tell you to wear reflective clothing and use lights (not only for
visibility with respect to auto drivers, but simply to avoid road hazards
when riding).
I find it very tiresome to always hear that someone wants to sue someone
else for behavior on their part which seems patently stupid. If you are
out at night and you have no helmet and you fall, suing the bike
manufacturer or the state for not forcing you to wear one seems absurd.
There is a real schizophrenia in this society where certain groups
patently refuse to have the government mandate that motorcycle helmets be
worn or that their headlights be turned on at all times, and then in the
same breath someone riding a motorcycle wants to sue the manufacturer for
faulty design when during a collision he/she loses a leg due to the fact
that there is no enclosing cage on the machine.
Why not simply have people take responsibility for their actions? If you
ride at night you need a light and a helmet and a reflective vest and a
rear blinker. I would toss in probably reflective leg bands and a
reflective helmet band as well.
========================================================================
= @
= _ \ Eric Geoffrey Vann tel: (708) 538-2888
= (*)-~--+(*) Motorola, Inc. fax: (708) 576-0710
Schaumburg, IL 60173
email: eric...@msmail.wes.mot.com
Hezekiah 6:8 "Recumbents are a way of life..."
========================================================================
Andy Nourse
>light gets lost in background illumination from a lighted sign).
>So, you promised them they should be seen and they weren't.
>(BUT THEY CAN ALWAYS SEE HEADLAMPS). Time to sue your butt off.
>That's the problem with legislating common sense - the level of
>comfort for one person will never be adequate for all people. There will
>always be someone who takes you literally at your word and faults you
>for it.
Particularly since you might have been seen if you had, say a pair
of car headlights and a full-sized car battery to power them.
I actually saw somebody with a bicycle equipped that way once in Cambridge,
it must have at least doubled the weight of his already-heavy bike.
AAAAAACK.
Duane Bindschadler
> NO HEADLAMP WINS JUDGEMENT AGAINST DERBY CYCLES
[deleted]
This whole incident seems to bespeak the continued erosion of
personal responsibility in our society. I can't imagine blaming
a bicycle manufacturer because I neglected to put a headlamp
on my bicycle before I rode at night.
Be that as it may, what I _really_ wonder is
(1) how much of a fee did Mr. Forester collect for his expert
testimony?
(2) How much of the jury's award goes not to the disabled young
man, but to the lawyers?
(3) What was the route by which the boy and/or his family decided
to sue the bicycle company? Was it their idea?
duane b.
--
bindsch | "This is geology, not malevolence!" |
@ \ /
artemis.ess.ucla.edu | - Cmdr. William Riker, |
(phew!) \ Enterprise /
John - Forester
case. We all know that there is no doubt at all about the proposition
that cyclists should use a headlamp when cycling at night. However,
we are now a particularly well-informed group of people. I rather
doubt that we would have been so uniform in our opinions twenty years
ago when I started my campaign for cyclists to use lights at night.
Also, we are a tiny minority in a nation that believes otherwise.
Probably in each of the last twenty years I have had to spend
considerable time explaining why cyclists need to use a headlamp at
night.
This erroneous superstition extends from the highest to the lowest
in our society. The all-reflector system was devised by the American
bicycle industry and published in its Standard BMA/6 for bicycles.
The federal Consumer Product Safety Commission made the official
statement, published in the Federal Register, that the all-reflector
system "provided adequate visibility to motorists under lowlight
conditions." That is the finding that supports the legal requirement
that all bicycles sold be equipped with that system. The CPSC has
never retracted that finding. You may ask how it was possible that
the CPSC commissioners made such an obviously foolish finding. The
reason was that they so believed that reflectors were adequate that
they didn't think it necessary to make any tests to determine whether
or not their belief was correct. Since it was obvious it must be
correct.
When I sued the federal government about its CPSC regulation,
specifically about the finding that it was safe to ride at night with
only the all-reflector system, the judges could have sent that
portion of the regulation back for reconsideration. Instead, they
held that the CPSC's judgement about that was a rational one that the
Commission was empowered by law to make. You on the rec.bicycle.soc
network know that that judgement was so patently absurd that it
should have been thrown out -- at least the comments read as if you
feel that way. But nobody up there in the heights felt that way, and
precious few do today.
I had to argue the case for headlamps before the National
Committee for Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances, the body of the
nation's traffic experts that prepares the Uniform Vehicle Code
(which is the recommended basis for the states' vehicle codes), when
the Bicycle Manufacturers Association and Schwinn Bicycle Company
introduced a bill to make a requirement for the all-reflector system
the governing traffic law. Nobody knows whether or not that bill have
passed if I hadn't argued against it, but quite a few of the traffic
experts before whom I argued were ill-informed on the issue.
Even among those who should know there is debate. Dan Burden talks
up reflector systems to all who will listen, and since he is
Florida's bike coordinator he gets listened to.
The state drivers' and cyclists' handbooks are wishy-washy about
the situation, talking up reflectors as if they were as good as
lamps.
All of us who observe nighttime cycling habits know that a large
proportion of nighttime cyclists don't use lights. The research done
for this case showed figures of 80% believing that reflectors provide
the required protection and 75% actually not using lights at night.
In the Derby case, answers by Derby's management showed that they
had only inaccurate ideas about the safety requirements for cycling
at night. They said specifically that they relied on the all-
reflector system as specified by law to provide the conspicuity
required for riding at night. Their booklet of instructions and
warnings was so mixed up that the smidgen of correct information was
hidden among other incorrect and inappropriate information.
Given this situation, what can be done about it? Sure, people
should be taught the truth. I have been trying that for years, but
those who should teach the people about cycling have declined to do
so. Today, the only adequately informed cyclists in America are some
of the enthusiasts.
There is another promising avenue for instruction, the instruction
booklet that is required by law to be provided with every bicycle.
These booklets are required by law to provide instructions and
warnings concerning the safe operation of bicycles. The bicycle
industry has never provided in these booklets effective instructions
and warnings about cycling at night -- at least, among the many that
I have seen there aren't any that are effective. Why not? I attribute
the absence of effective warnings to two things: ignorance and a
vested interest in the all-reflector system. The industry invented,
promoted, and persuaded the federal and the state governments to
adopt the all-reflector system (the states retained the headlamp as
well) because it felt that this was in its own interest. The industry
was not interested in the welfare of nighttime cyclists (that was
evident at the time, and I see no change since), but in its own
welfare. Whether or not that was a correct judgement on its part is
open to debate. In this case, Derby failed in its legally required
duty and is suffering the consequences.
Some have written that they don't place much faith in instruction
books, that the victim in this case would have still cycled without a
headlamp even if he had read a booklet from Derby that had been
properly written. I don't disagree; that is quite likely. But we are
not talking about one copy of one instruction booklet; we are talking
about approximately 50 million issued in the past and all those to be
issued in the future. If all of those had provided the true
information, things would be different today; the majority of people
would have received the word, by actual reading or by the normal
diffusion of knowledge through society. The booklets would have had
to say at least two things. First, that the all-reflector system does
not provide the proper protection at night. Second, that for safety
(not merely to obey the law) the nighttime cyclist must use a
headlamp and a large, bright rear reflector, and he should consider
using a rear lamp as well. The point of the instructions could be
made with a few illustrations, just like those I put in Effective
Cycling. If the industry had known and cared, they could have done it
for practically no cost, an extra two pages in thirty-page pamphlets.
It didn't do so and there is ample evidence that it didn't want to do
anything of the kind.
Some on the net might think that I am a quarrelsome, litigious
person who benefits, as an expert witness, from ill-advised lawsuits.
(I don't make much of a living from law cases; that work merely
enables me to continue with my work for cyclists.) Generally, I am on
the other side, that of conservatism, scientific truth, negligence
instead of what is called strict liability. Philosophically I
disapprove of many of the legal changes that allow lawsuits that were
not permissible in the past. By and large, bicycle design and
production, and traffic laws for that matter, that follow historic
precedent are safe and workable. Most bicycle design is safe, and
many of the improvements are real improvements without deleterious
side effects. However, a few of the new developments have proved
troublesome and dangerous. The composite aluminum and steel front
forks of the Viscount bicycles too often broke catastrophically.
That's old news that anybody can mention today. I know of a few other
errors around. The principle that new, improved, designs always
introduce the risk of new dangers is a fact of engineering life.
Without some risk we wouldn't have any progress. Read Henry
Petroski's *To Engineer Is Human* for a popular discussion of this
point. (And there are always the few cases in which manufacturing
error or undiscoverable physical condition has allowed a few
dangerous examples of a basically safe design.) Seen in this light,
the change-over from headlamps and rear reflectors, a system that we
knew worked well, met the safety requirements, and could be improved,
to the all-reflector system, which it was then known could not
fulfill the safety requirements, was a change that produced nothing
but harm to cyclists.
I will not discuss whether $7 million is a fair amount; that's
outside my province. What I do say is that that payment is a very
strong signal to the bicycle industry to change its ways about
nighttime protective equipment. Since nothing else has convinced the
industry to change its ways on that subject, maybe this will. Maybe
those in power will realize that the injurious consequences of their
policy outweigh whatever advantages they thought to obtain.
Philip G. Aaronson
[Some deleted here and there]
>I have little sympathy for most cyclists in Illinois who knowingly ride
>down the Illinois Prairie Path at night without any kind of headlight or
>taillight. What is more I see these same folks traveling the streets of
>my home town Wheaton, IL, with nary a light visible.
I am concerned about who you think is at fault,
it sounds to me like you have made up your mind.
I'm taking this beyond the context of what you were
talking about, but what it sounds like is this: if I got
into an accident at night with nary a light
visible then its automatically my fault.
[my own little sarcasm tossed in] Unless
of course the driver stopped and a had a beer
beforehand, THEN its automatically the drivers
fault.
>I find it very tiresome to always hear that someone wants to sue someone
>else for behavior on their part which seems patently stupid. If you are
>out at night and you have no helmet and you fall, suing the bike
>manufacturer or the state for not forcing you to wear one seems absurd.
But what does having a helmet or not having a helmet
have to do with the original cause of the crash?
It has to do with the results of the crash.
I do have a sympathetic ear for your system of social
Darwinism but if someone else is negligent then doesn't
it follow that that are liable for even the patently
stupid?
>Why not simply have people take responsibility for their actions? If you
>ride at night you need a light and a helmet and a reflective vest and a
>rear blinker. I would toss in probably reflective leg bands and a
>reflective helmet band as well.
I don't like it because it pulls away from the real
issue of sorting out a given situation.
A checklist of excuses for drivers if you will.
Little Jimmy had a front light, but if only he
had been following the law and had that reflective
vest on I might have seen him ... and I can see, SEE
the jury all nodding their heads in agreement. Because
statistically the last time any person on that jury
was on a bike even once was OVER 3 years ago. The last
time anyone on that jury was in a car was probably that
morning and nearly ALL have undoubtedly had a close call
driving their car with some other poor bastard on
a bike. Admitting fault for Lard Ass #1 who hit poor
Little Jimmy is tantamount to admitting fault in
themselves.
Unless of course, Little Jimmy's lawyer is very good
and shows why Lard Ass #1's situation is very
different from the personal experiences that each
member of the jury is REALLY judging the case on.
Like if Lard Ass #1 isn't a person, but a
corporation ...
God I'm cynical today.
Lata,
Phil
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Phil Aaronson | email: aaro...@nas.nasa.gov |
| Junior Research Scientist | phone: (415) 604-4527 |
| NASA Ames Research Center | Get on the bike, ride the bike |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
"Get the word out ... We are here." - Woodside Officer, badge#517
Richard Mlynarik
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.soc
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 93 18:13:04 PST
NO HEADLAMP WINS JUDGEMENT AGAINST DERBY CYCLES
As the principal expert witness in the no headlamp case against
Derby Cycles I will explain the logic of the case. [...]
The only wording that could possibly be effective in the present
mileau is one that says that THIS BICYCLE IS EQUIPPED WITH 10
REFLECTORS ONLY BECAUSE THE LAW REQUIRES IT. THEY WILL NOT MAKE YOU
SAFE AT NIGHT. IN MANY NIGHTTIME ACCIDENT SITUATIONS MOTORISTS CAN'T
SEE REFLECTORS, BUT THEY CAN ALWAYS SEE HEADLAMPS. WHEN CYCLING AT
NIGHT YOU MUST, FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY, USE A FRONT HEADLAMP AND A LARGE
REAR REFLECTOR WITH, IF YOUR STATE REQUIRES ONE, A REAR LAMP AS WELL.
Regardless of the truth of the Expert Witness' belief that "motorists
[...] can always see headlamps" let me express my own belief: in the
vast plurality of cases, a motorist's unsubstantiated claim that "I
didn't see him" is, regardless of the time of day, traffic conditions,
lighting conditions or behaviour of a cyclist, sufficient to prevent
charges of manslaughter being brought. (And this is also regardless
of the total unwillingness of the justice system to treat vehicular
mayhem as sociopathic and cause for severe penalty.)
Forester's party was very likely unable to prevent the accident in
which s/he was involved, but there is no guarantee that in a similar
but hypothetical situation the motorist would have seen the cyclist's
hypothetical headlamp, recognised the presence of bicycle traffic,
realised that bicycles can travel at speeds greater than 15kmh and
ceded right-of-way as required by law. Perhaps the only difference
might be that the hypothetical, lighted cyclist would not have
received a $US7000000 (less substantial lawyer's, expert's and other
fees) settlement, but would be written off as "just another damn-fool
bicyclist cluttering our highways." Ask Al Lester.
Ed Botsko
clothing...I hope Derby appeals and wins. I wonder if you are somehow involved
with the mfg of bicycle lighting equipment.
Ed B
Glen Niebur
> All of us who observe nighttime cycling habits know that a large
>proportion of nighttime cyclists don't use lights. The research done
>for this case showed figures of 80% believing that reflectors provide
>the required protection and 75% actually not using lights at night.
Is this 75% of those who ride at night don't use lights, or 75% of the
bicycle owners. I believe that 80% of teenagers believe it is safe to
ride at night without lights. Teenagers don't think anything is dangerous.
I can't imagine that 75% even ride their bikes regularly, much less at
night. Does anyone have any statistics on bicycle usage at night?
Even when i was in college, and i knew alot of people who commuted by
bike, i don't think 75% of them rode at night.
My point is that if this survey of his peers included only people who
rode their bikes at night, then it ignored alot of his peers who may
have chosen not to ride at night because they felt it was unsafe.
Glen
Siddarth Subramanian
>Is this 75% of those who ride at night don't use lights, or 75% of the
>bicycle owners. I believe that 80% of teenagers believe it is safe to
>ride at night without lights. Teenagers don't think anything is dangerous.
>I can't imagine that 75% even ride their bikes regularly, much less at
>night. Does anyone have any statistics on bicycle usage at night?
>Even when i was in college, and i knew alot of people who commuted by
>bike, i don't think 75% of them rode at night.
Two nights ago, on a cold (for Texas, anyway), foggy, drizzly night,
well after sunset, I decided to leave my bike here in my office and
take the bus home (since I didn't have any rain gear and my glasses
would get fogged up). I waited at a bus stop for about 20 minutes on
one of the main routes out of the university.
I counted over 30 bikes on that street heading out of the university
(I lost count after a while but it was upwards of 30). One (1) had a
headlamp. One (1) had a front flashing led light. That's it. A lot of
bikes didn't even have front reflectors.
--
*****************************************************************
* Siddarth Subramanian Austin, Texas, USA *
* sidd...@cs.utexas.edu 30 16 01 N 97 44 34 W *
*****************************************************************
David Casseres
j...@halfmoon.cea.berkeley.edu writes:
>The 10 point reflector system is ludicrous, but so is collecting
>millions from a company that probably did a lousy job writing the
>English manual. I don't think I should ask if he was wearing a
>helmet either.
Goddammit, nobody has collected a dime yet in this case, so all the
fervid moralizing that is spewing out of half the population in rec.bikes
is just so much hot air. The judgement is going to be drastically cut;
that's how these cases work. This whole damn thing is a non-event.
Everybody, please, let's talk about bikes and biking.
-------------
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Chris Malcolm
>Is this 75% of those who ride at night don't use lights, or 75% of the
>bicycle owners. I believe that 80% of teenagers believe it is safe to
>ride at night without lights. Teenagers don't think anything is dangerous.
Here in Edinburgh Scotland the police have been clamping down on unlit
bicyclists. Note that here, at this time of year, if you leave work at
five pm it is dark. What some of the students are doing, having got
heavy warnings from the police, is to put rear lamps, lit, in the back
pocket of their jeans, and then put their jackets over them. When
close up in a dark street you can see a faint red glow through the
jacket. If a policeman stops them they say innocently "oh, did my
jacket fall over it?". They regard this as "cool" behaviour. Of
course they don't wear any conspicuity gear, just dark clothes, and
they don't look over their shoulder before changing direction. There
is no doubt they are determined to assert their natural right to be
dangerous idiots.
I'm wondering if it would actually be an altruistic social service to
sideswipe these guys off their bikes as I pass them.
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.
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?
D.Robinson,,,
> There is some truth to the fact that were it not for governmental
> agencies both here and abroad certain safety items would probably be
> unavailable on automobiles. The is especially true of seatbelts and
> airbags. It is also true of car designs which provide for a controlled
> collapse of the exterior with an interior cage that remains essentially
> rigid.
I don't think that is true. I remember seatbelts fitted at the time of
manufacture to cars built in 1961, long before seatbelts were mandatory.
Crumple zone and airbags are well advertised features of many cars, (but
not mandatory here) therefore retailers obviously think they sell cars. Yes,
you may have had to pay extra, and perhaps not everybody would have been
willing to, but you can bet your life that seatbelts, crumple zones and
airbags would be available on cars whatever the government legislation. People
are always prepared to fork out for their own safety.
What isn't likley to be available without government regulations (not
that it is now!) are FEATURES TO PROTECT THE PEDESTRIAN. There are many
such as softer bumpers and hoods that have been shown to reduce accident
severity for pedestrians hit by cars. And with six and a half thousand
pedestrians killed annually on US roads you might have thought the authorities
would make a start.
Morally, the car manufacturer's responsibility for not building cars with
front ends that minimise the damage to pedestrians hit by them is at least
as great as that of this particular bike importer for not supplying a
sufficiently strongly worded warning that bike likes are required at night.
But sadly, the product liability laws don't apply in such a case.
Or perhaps, somewhere among those sixty thousand or so pedestrians killed or
seriously injured each year, there may be one who was hit by his own car,
perhaps because jnr borrowed it and got careless, or even if it was stolen....
Then, presumably, the product liability laws would apply.
Now that would be interesting!
Dorre.
> Eric Geoffrey Vann tel: (708) 538-2888
(Apologies if this does not seem about bikes, but if there was a precident
for pedestrians, then the same principles should apply concerning bikes.)
Robert S. Posey 575-6627 msgid 3EVT
should have incurred no liability at all in a sane world.
John Tobin
[stuff deleted]
>Goddammit, nobody has collected a dime yet in this case, so all the
>fervid moralizing that is spewing out of half the population in rec.bikes
>is just so much hot air. The judgement is going to be drastically cut;
>that's how these cases work. This whole damn thing is a non-event.
>Everybody, please, let's talk about bikes and biking.
No one is making you read these messages. I find the case and the debate
that surrounds it to be very interesting, and the volume of posts on this
issue shows that others feel the same way.
"Bikes and biking" is about more that rides, races, and equipment; it's
about the legal, social, safety, and ethical issues of cycling as well.
Alex D Rodriguez
Robert S. Posey 575-6627 msgid 3EVT <po...@dseg.ti.com> wrote:
>The Bike company said you needed lights, maybe badly but in reasonable English. They
>should have incurred no liability at all in a sane world.
>
Mr. Forester said that the section of the safety manual that said you should
use lights at night was under the heading of "Riding Off Road". This does not
make it obvious to use lights when riding on the road. Maybe the cycling
companies will now have their manuals written and printed in the US instead
of some foreign country.
------------------
Alex Rodriguez
Peter Norquist
|> From article <1993Nov9.1...@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com>, by eric...@msmail.wes.mot.com (Eric Geoffrey Vann):
|> > There is some truth to the fact that were it not for governmental
|> > agencies both here and abroad certain safety items would probably be
|> > unavailable on automobiles. The is especially true of seatbelts and
|> > airbags. It is also true of car designs which provide for a controlled
|> > collapse of the exterior with an interior cage that remains essentially
|> > rigid.
|>
|> I don't think that is true. I remember seatbelts fitted at the time of
|> manufacture to cars built in 1961, long before seatbelts were mandatory.
I remember when seatbelts became mandatory in the US--the automakers bitched and moaned
saying it would drive them out of business. Much the same arguement they use when
higher gas efficiencies are mandated nowadays.
|> Crumple zone and airbags are well advertised features of many cars, (but
|> not mandatory here) therefore retailers obviously think they sell cars. Yes,
|> you may have had to pay extra, and perhaps not everybody would have been
|> willing to, but you can bet your life that seatbelts, crumple zones and
|> airbags would be available on cars whatever the government legislation.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They're not available on ALL new cars. (In the US only seatbelts are required
AND universally available.)
|> People
|> are always prepared to fork out for their own safety.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not true in the US. We can't even get some people to wear their seatbelts! I
doubt those folks would pay extra for safety features in their cars--especially
when they refuse to use the minimal safety equipment that comes standard with
the car.
[much deleted...]
-Peter
--
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Comp. support is the opiate of the physicist." -Paul Spencer
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ed Ravin
>The remarks above about daylight riding are nonsense. If you assume
>that every oncoming vehicle is going to turn left in front of you, you
>dare not ride faster than about 5 MPH and even then it would be
>appropriate to be paralyzed by fear.
I've heard this comment from a few other people in California -- they
must not cycle much in New York.
I don't "assume" that every oncoming vehicle is going to turn left in
front of me, but when I approach an intersection, I always suspect that
it might happen. And when it happens (not often, but it does happen),
rather than getting run down I manage to avoid an accident.
So it's not every oncoming vehicle -- just every oncoming vehicle when
you're crossing an intersection where left turns are permitted. Either
they don't see you, they don't care, or they figure you'll make a panic
stop to avoid hitting them.
--
Ed Ravin e...@wp.prodigy.com
Prodigy Services Company era...@panix.com
445 Hamilton Avenue
White Plains, NY 10601 +1 914 993 4737
Glen Niebur
If i read his post correctly, the manual stated it once (very poorly)
under night riding safety, and then had a more complete coverage under
offroad riding. The offroad riding section mentioned being stopped at
a stop light, so it is unclear in that sense but most people can gather
their meaning (i think).
If they wanted to say that the owners manual was written in a fashion
that made it impossible to comprehend the safety instructions, they should
have sued for this. The lawsuit as understand it says that the manufacturer
in some way suggested that it was safe to ride at night with only the
reflectors. From what i read, they never said that, and in two places
suggested the use of front and rear lights.
From John Forester's most recent posts, i get the impression that the
Derby attorneys *did* use the argument *in court* that it was safe to
ride without lights. I think this was a mistake. If the facts were
presented to the jury in this way, i guess i can't fault them for their
judgement. Why did they not argue along the lines of:
1) We did not intend the bike for nightime use (without the addition
of lighting to be supplied by the user), and we only included
the reflectors to comply with federal regulation.
2) The use of lighting at night was suggested in 2 places in the
owners manual (which the owner probably never read). The fact
that much attention was also paid to the reflector system does
not detract from the suggestion to use lights.
3) While the reflectors are not a substitute for lights, they do
increase the visibility of the bicycle in many situations, and
furthermore, we were required by federal law to provide them.
Jim Shankland
>Goddammit, nobody has collected a dime yet in this case, so all the
>fervid moralizing that is spewing out of half the population in rec.bikes
>is just so much hot air. The judgement is going to be drastically cut;
>that's how these cases work. This whole damn thing is a non-event.
>Everybody, please, let's talk about bikes and biking.
As I said in an earlier followup, this is simply not true.
Restating it will not make it more so. Ask Derby Cycles whether
"this whole damn thing is a non-event." Sure, they'll appeal;
the judgment *may* be cut, or eliminated ... or maybe not.
Meanwhile, they'll be buying a lot of expensive legal help,
and biting their nails. They are unlikely to be reassured by
your bald statement that "the judgment is going to be drastically
cut."
jas
Avery Burdett
In a previous article, drob...@mendel.une.edu.au (D.Robinson,,,) says:
> What isn't likley to be available without government regulations (not
>that it is now!) are FEATURES TO PROTECT THE PEDESTRIAN. There are many
>such as softer bumpers and hoods that have been shown to reduce accident
>severity for pedestrians hit by cars. And with six and a half thousand
>pedestrians killed annually on US roads you might have thought the authorities
>would make a start.
> Morally, the car manufacturer's responsibility for not building cars with
>front ends that minimise the damage to pedestrians hit by them is at least
>as great as that of this particular bike importer for not supplying a
>sufficiently strongly worded warning that bike likes are required at night.
>But sadly, the product liability laws don't apply in such a case.
I agree and it's not just pedestrians, it's all other road users. Many
laws related to cycling in North American jurisdictions are
legislated supposedly to protect cyclists from themselves without any real
assessment of the consequences on cyclists and cycling. The reflector law
and mandatory helmet law are examples. Forester has explained clearly what
happens when the anticipated effects of a proposed action is not studied.
The helmet law is the same. The latest survey out of New South Wales,
Australia shows continuing declines in on-road ridership, now over 50%
among child cyclists, the next generation of serious cyclists.
Here in Ontario, the Province has deliberately ignored the NSW
results and pushed on with legislation anyway. Meanwhile, powerful
car and labour interests, continue to manufacturer cars with capabilities
which are illegal (maximum speed) and dangerous to others when driver
control is lost.
--
333
john.e.ampe
> 1) We did not intend the bike for nightime use (without the addition
> of lighting to be supplied by the user), and we only included
> the reflectors to comply with federal regulation.
>
> 2) The use of lighting at night was suggested in 2 places in the
> owners manual (which the owner probably never read). The fact
> that much attention was also paid to the reflector system does
> not detract from the suggestion to use lights.
>
> 3) While the reflectors are not a substitute for lights, they do
> increase the visibility of the bicycle in many situations, and
> furthermore, we were required by federal law to provide them.
Good points. I would add:
4) The cyclist was violating state law by not using a headlamp.
So now we have the cyclist violating the law, the manual, and common
sense. I can't see that adding up to $7M.
John Ciccarelli
Ed Ravin writes (was "Paranoid Cycling"):
> I don't "assume" that every oncoming vehicle is going to turn left in
> front of me, but when I approach an intersection, I always suspect
> it might happen....
I've noticed that if I'm centered in the lane instead of nearer to the right
edge, left-turning motorists seem to wait much more reliably. I suspect this
is because non-cyclists are accustomed to looking at *cars* for behavior cues,
and I'm exactly where a car would be when preparing for the thru motion.
Do others have this experience? If so, do you "explain" it the same way?
/John Ciccarelli
Larry M Watanabe
>If i read his post correctly, the manual stated it once (very poorly)
>under night riding safety, and then had a more complete coverage under
>offroad riding. The offroad riding section mentioned being stopped at
>a stop light, so it is unclear in that sense but most people can gather
>their meaning (i think).
Perfectly clear. If you ride on off-road trails with stop lights,
then you need a light.
-Larry Watanabe
Jennifer R. Accettola
>I've noticed that if I'm centered in the lane instead of nearer to the right
>edge, left-turning motorists seem to wait much more reliably. I suspect this
>is because non-cyclists are accustomed to looking at *cars* for behavior cues,
>and I'm exactly where a car would be when preparing for the thru motion.
>Do others have this experience? If so, do you "explain" it the same way?
I have a similar theory on the subject-- I really do believe that it has
to do with being in the same spot where cars are supposed to be, especially
when you are trying to make a left turn in a busy intersection. If cars
are trying to pass you up and cut you off with a right turn, I think it
really has to do with the fact that there is enough room for them to pass
you. If you don't allow them enough space to pass, they really have to
pay attention to what you are doing. I usually let people go by me on
most streets, but where it is busy with lots of cars parked on the side,
I'll take up the entire lane and slow traffic down to my 20 mph to keep
myself safe!
I really think that when you drive in the center of the lane,
drivers are forced to treat you as another vehicle. Also, I really hate
it when people blast their horn as they come up from behind, but I have
noticed that this occurs less if I am riding in a fairly straight line
closer to the center of the lane. Drivers and pedestrians really don't
pay as much attention to where they are going. Drivers honk because
the cyclist startled them, and cut off cyclists with right turns (or
left turns!) because they really aren't looking at the traffic.
Ciao, Jenn
D.Robinson,,,
> In article <25...@grivel.une.edu.au>, drob...@mendel.une.edu.au (D.Robinson,,,) writes:
> |> Crumple zone and airbags are well advertised features of many cars, (but
> |> not mandatory here) therefore retailers obviously think they sell cars. Yes,
> |> you may have had to pay extra, and perhaps not everybody would have been
> |> willing to, but you can bet your life that seatbelts, crumple zones and
> |> airbags would be available on cars whatever the government legislation.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> They're not available on ALL new cars. (In the US only seatbelts are required
> AND universally available.)
I didn't say they were. But they are available for anyone who wants them,
and many people do.
> |> People
> |> are always prepared to fork out for their own safety.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Not true in the US. We can't even get some people to wear their seatbelts! I
> doubt those folks would pay extra for safety features in their cars--especially
> when they refuse to use the minimal safety equipment that comes standard with
> the car.
True, but that's not necessarily a bad thing for us cyclists. In the
two years following mandatory seatbelt wearing for driver and front
seat passengers in the UK, the following fatality increases occured for
rear-seat passengers, pedestrians, and cyclists killed in two party accidents
with cars. They were increases above the prevailing trends identified in the
report: pedestrians up 14%, cyclists up 40%, rear-seat passengers up 27%.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(From Robert Davis, Death on the Streets).
In fact, far from saving thousands of lives every year, the statistical
reports quoted in that book suggest that the effect of mandatory seatbelt
wearing was relatively minor, some of the increased safety for car drivers
being offset by increased risks to other road users, presumably because
of increased risk taking by drivers who felt safer. You can't tell some people!
What we really want is for such safety equipment to be readily available
to all drivers who want it. And governments to legislate for mandatory
equipment to ensure the safety of others - pedestrians, cyclists and car
passengers.
> -Peter
Dorre
Matt Bushore
As a relatively non interesting side note, I have been told
that Derby is not in totally wonderful financial shape. They are
trying to sell one of their companies, and Raleigh's sales are somewhat
slow. This might explain their seemingly bonehead/cheap lawyer
What would have happened in this case if the boy was riding a custom
built bicycle? Do they come with manuals? Would that be a non event
for the frame builder?
--
Matt Bushore
David Casseres
j...@montage.com writes:
[I wrote]
>>Goddammit, nobody has collected a dime yet in this case, so all the
>>fervid moralizing that is spewing out of half the population in
rec.bikes
>>is just so much hot air. The judgement is going to be drastically cut;
>>that's how these cases work. This whole damn thing is a non-event.
>>Everybody, please, let's talk about bikes and biking.
>
>As I said in an earlier followup, this is simply not true.
It is a fact that nobody has yet collected any money (except possibly
lawyers!). Do you mean it's not true that the judgment is going to be
cut? If so, how do you know that? Do you mean it's not a non-event?
Well, that's a matter of opinion.
>Restating it will not make it more so. Ask Derby Cycles whether
>"this whole damn thing is a non-event."
Why don't *you* ask them, and tell us what they say?
>Sure, they'll appeal;
>the judgment *may* be cut, or eliminated ... or maybe not.
And maybe I'll win the Irish Sweepstakes. Give me a break. Judgements
like this one simply are not upheld by the higher courts.
>Meanwhile, they'll be buying a lot of expensive legal help,
>and biting their nails.
The cost of the legal help is the one thing I think may be a serious
issue here, and it's practically the only thing nobody is complaining
about.
>They are unlikely to be reassured by
>your bald statement that "the judgment is going to be drastically
>cut."
I'm not interested in your guesses about their emotional state.
Eric House
<eric...@msmail.wes.mot.com> wrote:
> In the case of automobiles were it not for the mandating of such safety
> features, automobile manufacturers would probably not install them,
> deaming such items to contribute in a negative way to profitability. It
> would then be necessary for consumer advocacy groups to go out and
> pressure automakers to include such things, and reward those that did
> with their business.
>
> Now bicycling is a bit different in this regard. There are few things
> that cannot be purchased as aftermarket products, which contribute to
> safety.
What if government standards didn't require lights on cars? What if
instead auto makers had managed to convince some government agency that
a few well-placed reflectors were sufficient to ensure the safety of
the nighttime motoring public -- in spite of evidence to the contrary?
If then some idiot chose not to pay about 10% of what his car had cost
in the first place (let alone what it's now worth) for a barely adequate
aftermarket light and got killed or killed someone else -- in that case,
would you feel that the auto makers and government were completely blame-
less?
I've been trying to figure out why it strikes us as ridiculous to sell a
car without lights but not a bicycle. It must be that the assumption is
that most bikes are toys whose use is totally discretionary but that cars
are tools that will inevitably need to be used at night. But in fact I'd
bet that most bikes that are ridden at all wind up being ridden at night
sometime, if only because the rider has miscalculated the length of his
ride. Be that as it may, this whole mess has come about because bikes are
treated and regulated as toys. That situation has to change. Even those
whose bikes *are* [expensive] toys lose out in the current situation, as
the CPSC gets in the way of details as obscure as BB height because it
envisions a typical rider of 10 on a hiriser with a banana seat....
--
**************************************************************************
Eric House "My employer doesn't share its opinions with
BMB in '94? me, so I can share only mine with you"
Chris Malcolm
>I've been trying to figure out why it strikes us as ridiculous to sell a
>car without lights but not a bicycle. It must be that the assumption is
>that most bikes are toys whose use is totally discretionary but that cars
>are tools that will inevitably need to be used at night.
I was under the impression that if you went into a large bike shop
with a wide range of stuff that you would see two kinds of bike: toy
bikes, designed for high performance in some specialised niche, such
as high speed or rough terrain; and general purpose primary transport
bikes, sold with pannier carriers, hub dynamo lights with optional
back-up batteries, decent mudguards, and so on.
Richard F. Masoner
Exactly. When I'm stopped at intersections, I do the same.
For the same reasons, cyclists shouldn't ride the wrong way
down the street, or ride on sidewalks. Car drivers don't
expect vehicles in those places.
--
Richard F. Masoner rich...@sdf.lonestar.org
Seen on a magazine cover: "Guns don't kill people, television does"
Jeff Bernhard
:
: [ stuff deleted ]
:
: I've been trying to figure out why it strikes us as ridiculous to sell a
: car without lights but not a bicycle. It must be that the assumption is
: that most bikes are toys whose use is totally discretionary but that cars
: are tools that will inevitably need to be used at night. But in fact I'd
: bet that most bikes that are ridden at all wind up being ridden at night
: sometime, if only because the rider has miscalculated the length of his
: ride. Be that as it may, this whole mess has come about because bikes are
: treated and regulated as toys. That situation has to change. Even those
: whose bikes *are* [expensive] toys lose out in the current situation, as
: the CPSC gets in the way of details as obscure as BB height because it
: envisions a typical rider of 10 on a hiriser with a banana seat....
:
: --
: **************************************************************************
: Eric House "My employer doesn't share its opinions with
: BMB in '94? me, so I can share only mine with you"
I would guess that bikes are thought generally to not be ridden in
inclement weather or at night, or when it is very cold, or ....
This may be equivalent to saying that bikes are thought of as toys,
but perhaps not: Not toys, but most bike owners also own cars, and
can chose to use the latter when conditions warrant. Then again,
perhaps bikes are toys, in the eyes of some.
If lights were sold with bikes, what standard should be applied? What
pattern and intensity would be required? Would this not depend on the use,
or should the most intensive use be the standard applied? Should some test
circuitry be also required to indicate whether the batteries are adequately
charged, and does "adequately charged" mean 2 hours, or 4 hours, of
undiminished output under load? Perhaps the minimal standard should be
used: 2 watts, for an hour, and a description of what reasonable use
is appropriate for this light. If you ride longer, or faster, you should
upgrade. Should the buyer read a waiver in the store when purchasing the
bike and sign that he understands that with the light installed (if any),
what limitations should be applied to his riding? How is it that the
consumer takes responsibility and decides for himself what risks he is
willing to take without recourse to suing the pants off someone else for
their bad judgement? Should all bikes be so affected? Should I have to
have a light on a bike that I know I will only ride during daylight hours?
It still seems to me that no light should be installed by default on a bike,
and the state should require that each purchaser know the laws regarding
bicycles and lights, and sign a waiver that they have been informed and
understand these laws. The waiver can also include a more thorough description
of what variants in riding are possible and what lighting would be required
for each variant. As experienced cyclists, we know that if we ride at night,
we should attach a light of adequate power for the use. Why should it be so
hard to spread this idea to others?
--
********************************************************************************
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!
********************************************************************************
Eric Wassermann
Malcolm) wrote:
>
> I was under the impression that if you went into a large bike shop
> with a wide range of stuff that you would see two kinds of bike: toy
> bikes, designed for high performance in some specialised niche, such
> as high speed or rough terrain; and general purpose primary transport
> bikes, sold with pannier carriers, hub dynamo lights with optional
> back-up batteries, decent mudguards, and so on.
>
> --
> 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
Not in the last 15 years on this side of the Atlantic, old boy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As far as I know,
Eric Wassermann The opinions expressed are not
Human Motor Control Section those of the Federal Government,
NINDS, NIH the U.S. Public Health Service
or the National Institutes of Health
Dr Richard Taylor
I have yet to see a "general purpose primary transport" bike for sale
in the US. Mudguards, panniers (except the occasional ourer),
lights.... they are all extras
rwt
Mr. Nice Guy
Eric House <eho...@apple.com> wrote:
>What if government standards didn't require lights on cars? What if
>instead auto makers had managed to convince some government agency that
>a few well-placed reflectors were sufficient to ensure the safety of
>the nighttime motoring public -- in spite of evidence to the contrary?
>If then some idiot chose not to pay about 10% of what his car had cost
>in the first place (let alone what it's now worth) for a barely adequate
>aftermarket light and got killed or killed someone else -- in that case,
>would you feel that the auto makers and government were completely blame-
>less?
On the earliest autos headlights were an option. The owners added
the headlights that he wanted. As time passed headlights became
standard equipment but their were no standards. Around 1940 the sealed
beam headlight came into being, Because of the economics of scale all
auto manufactures used the same lamps because they were cheaper. Many
states only required sealed beam headlights. Now the federal government is
setting standards for lighting but most of what they chose is what was
already being used.
>
>I've been trying to figure out why it strikes us as ridiculous to sell a
>car without lights but not a bicycle. It must be that the assumption is
Most car owners want lights and plan to drive after dark. Most cyclists
don't plan to ride after dark and don't want lights>
>that most bikes are toys whose use is totally discretionary but that cars
>are tools that will inevitably need to be used at night. But in fact I'd
>bet that most bikes that are ridden at all wind up being ridden at night
>sometime, if only because the rider has miscalculated the length of his
>ride. Be that as it may, this whole mess has come about because bikes are
>treated and regulated as toys. That situation has to change. Even those
>whose bikes *are* [expensive] toys lose out in the current situation, as
>the CPSC gets in the way of details as obscure as BB height because it
>envisions a typical rider of 10 on a hiriser with a banana seat....
Reflectors can be removed.
--
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
John - Forester
large number of Americans feel that the all-reflector system is
adequate for nighttime cycling. Some think that Collin Johnson was
making up his story merely to get money out of Derby. Two facts
militate against the idea the most Americans know that the all-
reflector system is inadequate for nighttime cycling. The first is
that most Americans cycling at night do not use a headlamp. To verify
that, just go out at night and count the cyclists without headlamps
versus the ones with. The second is the evidence of those who say
that the all-reflector system is adequate for nighttime cycling,
starting from the top at the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the
lawcourts, and the legislatures and going right down to the people on
the street. A reason to believe that Johnson was not making up his
story is that he was cycling at night as he would have been cycling
in daylight. I do that, but only because I have a headlamp. Had
Johnson felt that the all-reflector system was inadequate, he would
have cycled in a way that would attempt to keep him out of the way of
all cars that might hit him. We know better than he did, but the fact
that a small, well-informed minority know something does not
demonstrate that the majority also know it, and the facts show the
opposite.
David Wittenberg
|> In article <ehouse-11...@ericsci.apple.com> eho...@apple.com (Eric House) writes:
|>
|>
|> I was under the impression that if you went into a large bike shop
|> with a wide range of stuff that you would see two kinds of bike: toy
|> bikes, designed for high performance in some specialised niche, such
|> as high speed or rough terrain; and general purpose primary transport
|> bikes, sold with pannier carriers, hub dynamo lights with optional
|> back-up batteries, decent mudguards, and so on.
|>
|> 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK DoD #205
You live in a different country than Eric. I have almost never seen the
"general purpose primary transport bike" you describe in the U.S.,
and when I have, it has been put together by its owner. I've never
seen such a bike in a store here.
--
--David Wittenberg
d...@cs.brandeis.edu
bui tho xuan
>In article c...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>|> In article eho...@apple.com (Eric House) writes:
>|>.....
>|> I was under the impression that if you went into a large bike shop
>|> with a wide range of stuff that you would see two kinds of bike: toy
>|> bikes, designed for high performance in some specialised niche, such
>|> as high speed or rough terrain; and general purpose primary transport
>|> bikes, sold with pannier carriers, hub dynamo lights with optional
>|> back-up batteries, decent mudguards, and so on.
>|>
>"general purpose primary transport bike" you describe in the U.S.,
>and when I have, it has been put together by its owner. I've never
>seen such a bike in a store here.
I went to a bike store today, and inquired about the new Specialized
Globe bikes--these are 3 or 7 speed hubgear commuters w/ built in
lights/fenders/racks etc... as Chris described. I asked the owner
about when I'll be able to test these new models. He said: "Oh,
we won't stock them. We'll have to special order them for ya."
Imagine that. Special ordering a general purpose primary transport
bike. Kinda roll off your tongue, don't it?
tho
Akkana Peck
>I see that there are still those on the net who do not believe that a
>large number of Americans feel that the all-reflector system is
>adequate for nighttime cycling. Some think that Collin Johnson was
>making up his story merely to get money out of Derby. Two facts
Having read the various articles John Forester has posted recently on
this subject, I now understand (though I don't personally agree) why
he testified on the side he did -- but what I don't understand, John,
is what you hope to see from this verdict.
Do you hope to see legislation passed requiring that all bicycles sold in
the US come with a headlight? That bicycles come with a warning that the
user should buy a headlight? That the CPSC reflector requirement be
abolished and bicycles be sold with neither reflectors nor lights?
Or do you simply want to see a bicycle company punished because the
bicycle industry lobbied for a bad law (the reflector requirement)?
I understand from all your articles that you don't like the reflector law
and that you think bicycles need lights to be ridden safely at night.
Fine -- most people here agree with you, but what should the government
do now, and how do you expect the Johnson vs. Derby decision to aid in
moving in that direction?
Personally, I'm upset by the verdict, because from where I sit it looks
like Johnson is being rewarded for stupid behavior, and a bicycle company
is being punished for something that wasn't avoidable, and the result is
likely to be more legislation which make bicycles more expensive and less
accessible to all of us. I'm hoping that perhaps you know something I
don't, something which makes you think that the verdict will actually
change the bicycle industry for the better, rather than for the worse.
Would you be willing to explain what you hope to achieve, for those of
us who may be missing your point?
...Akkana akk...@moab.wpd.sgi.com
akk...@netcom.com
Eric House
Peck) wrote:
I'm not John Forester, but will respond anyway as I haven't seen my
mailbox fill up in a while.
First, to say that Johnson was "rewarded" for his behaviour is absurd.
Maybe he deserved no settlement, but if you agree that the jury had the
right to decide that Derby caused the damage I don't find their award
or those in similar cases unreasonable. Exactly how many of us would
trade places with him even if he wound up getting every penny of the
$7 mil? If anyone says he would, I'd suspect he's on death's door
and thinking of his heirs -- or else already in the brain-damaged
state in which Johnson will spend the rest of his life.
People make a lot of the size of settlements in "accident" cases, but
when asked to put a price on their limbs or mental competence it's always
well above the most celebrated award. Maybe I'm missing something
here, but too many of us seem to resent our inflated insurance premiums
and to blame them on victims of the lifestyle we've adopted. The fact is
that when someone gets into a car he's making a decision that could deprive
someone else of his life or freedom of movement, without that person's
consent and at a price -- even if he sues and wins big -- well below any
price the victim might have agreed to. That we want people to just
accept that "accidents" happen and carry society's crosses for us is
asking for the most ridiculous of subsidies. Our addictions, whether to
individual motorized transportation or to cheap power or whatever, have
extremely high costs, and it serves no useful purpose to hide them behind
some notion that the victims are being rewarded.
And if that wasn't inflammatory enough....why shouldn't all bicycles
be required to be safe at night if cars are? Maybe a larger percentage
of bikes are toys whose owners can guarantee that they'll never ride at
night and will pull off the road if it ever gets foggy or rainy enough
that lights are necessary for safety. But so what? Most bikes are
eventually going to get ridden when lights would make the riding more
safe. To argue that lights would make those bikes more expensive need
carry no more weight with bikes than with cars: some buyers in either
case pay for features they'll never use. And all the rest benefit from
economies of scale and the design improvements that come with huge
markets.
Steve Manifold
> with a wide range of stuff that you would see two kinds of bike: toy
> bikes, designed for high performance in some specialised niche, such
> as high speed or rough terrain; and general purpose primary transport
> bikes, sold with pannier carriers, hub dynamo lights with optional
> back-up batteries, decent mudguards, and so on.
>
> --
1) If I use my racing bike to commute, is it still a toy?
2) Is a racing bike used by professional racers still a toy?
3) If the answer to 2) is no, then what about racing bikes used by amateur
athletes?
4) If a professional racer uses his racing bike in other than a UCI or
USCF sanctioned event, is it a toy then?
5) If a general purpose primary transport bike is used for just a ride
around the park, does it become a toy then?
6) Are you a snob?
--
____________________________________ _ ___________________________________
Steve Manifold _| ~-. University of Texas
eza...@hermes.chpc.utexas.edu \, *_} Center for Electromechanics
____________________________________ \/ ___________________________________
William D. Volk
In article <1993Nov17....@sol.cs.wmich.edu> (rec.bicycles.soc), tay...@sol.cs.wmich.edu (Dr Richard Taylor) writes:
> c...@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>
> in the US. Mudguards, panniers (except the occasional ourer),
> lights.... they are all extras
>
Cannondale, Specalized, and others have marketed "touring cycles"
from time to time (the present Cannondale model has suspension and
wooden fenders!). I own a Miayta, which has the fittings, load capacity,
and rack .... but not the fenders or light (which I added).
Heck if people are willing to buy Mountain Bicycles that never see
any dirt, a "touring" or "utility" (I like that) bicycle would be a speed
demon by comparision.
William Volk
P.S. I also think a good well-built, low cost recumbent would be
even more interesting.
D.Robinson,,,
> First, to say that Johnson was "rewarded" for his behaviour is absurd.
> Maybe he deserved no settlement, but if you agree that the jury had the
> right to decide that Derby caused the damage I don't find their award
> or those in similar cases unreasonable. Exactly how many of us would
> trade places with him even if he wound up getting every penny of the
> $7 mil? If anyone says he would, I'd suspect he's on death's door
> and thinking of his heirs -- or else already in the brain-damaged
> state in which Johnson will spend the rest of his life.
And therein lies the danger to the rest of the cycling community.
I wonder if the bike manual had instructions on helmet wearing. Perhaps
the next bike manufacturer will get sued as a result of the much more
common accident of a left turning motorist hitting a cyclist in broad
daylight, because there was a head injury and no instructions about
helmets. Then cyclists not wearing helmets will be considered to blame for
their injuries, numbers of cyclists on the road will be reduced, and, as
happened in Australia, the injury rate per cyclist will increase as driver
awareness of cyclists decreases. Who then, do you sue, for your accident
caused by a driver who might well have seen you had there been enough
cyclists on the road to remind drivers of their presence?
> People make a lot of the size of settlements in "accident" cases, but
> when asked to put a price on their limbs or mental competence it's always
> well above the most celebrated award. Maybe I'm missing something
> here, but too many of us seem to resent our inflated insurance premiums
> and to blame them on victims of the lifestyle we've adopted. The fact is
> that when someone gets into a car he's making a decision that could deprive
> someone else of his life or freedom of movement, without that person's
> consent and at a price -- even if he sues and wins big -- well below any
> price the victim might have agreed to. That we want people to just
> accept that "accidents" happen and carry society's crosses for us is
> asking for the most ridiculous of subsidies. Our addictions, whether to
> individual motorized transportation or to cheap power or whatever, have
> extremely high costs, and it serves no useful purpose to hide them behind
> some notion that the victims are being rewarded.
That's not the same argument. If a motorist is responsible for an accident,
then the motorist should make just recompense for the trouble caused. $7
million may be the correct figure in this case. But it is a different
story if the cyclist is injured because of his own foolishness.
In this case, I assume that the motorist has claimed he would have
seen the cyclist if he had had a light. That point in itself is certainly
debatable, if we are talking about a typical battery operated front light.
Just as drivers look only for cars in daylight, they tend to look only
for car-type headlights at night. But anyway, assuming the driver was
considered in no way responsible for the accident, should the bike supplier
be considered liable? Rather than the government, for not insisting that
all cyclists have lights at night. Or the boy or his parents for assuming
that the only information required for safe cycling should be contained
in the instruction manual with the bike, which did, after all, recommend
lights at night? I don't think the manufacturers should really be considered
negligent in the way that that car manufacturer was considered liable and
sued over the design of the petrol tank. Though the insurance company of the
driver who caused the accident should also pay a proportion equivalent to the
probable damage in a 'normal' accident.
Hopefully, future instructions with bikes will caution buyers that their
purpose is to supply technical information about the particular type of bike,
and that the inexperienced user should consult a proper text or get training
to learn how to cycle safely on the roads, before risking his life in
traffic.
> And if that wasn't inflammatory enough....why shouldn't all bicycles
> be required to be safe at night if cars are? Maybe a larger percentage
> of bikes are toys whose owners can guarantee that they'll never ride at
> night and will pull off the road if it ever gets foggy or rainy enough
> that lights are necessary for safety. But so what? Most bikes are
> eventually going to get ridden when lights would make the riding more
> safe. To argue that lights would make those bikes more expensive need
> carry no more weight with bikes than with cars: some buyers in either
> case pay for features they'll never use. And all the rest benefit from
> economies of scale and the design improvements that come with huge
> markets.
The main argument against would be that cyclists are somewhat divided
as to the type of lights they prefer - permantly attached battery powered,
detachable battery powered, el cheapo dynamo, more expensive dynamo,
one with optional battery backup, vistalights, all the way through to
halogen headlights using 10 or 20 watts. Do you want every bike to
come with 5 or 6 different options? Would there really be economies of
scale?
Car users, at least, seem more agreed about what sort of lights
are required....
> Eric House "My employer doesn't share its opinions with
Dorre
Joel Plutchak
>I've heard this comment from a few other people in California -- they
>must not cycle much in New York.
>
>I don't "assume" that every oncoming vehicle is going to turn left in
>it might happen. And when it happens (not often, but it does happen),
>rather than getting run down I manage to avoid an accident.
>
>So it's not every oncoming vehicle -- just every oncoming vehicle when
>you're crossing an intersection where left turns are permitted. Either
>they don't see you, they don't care, or they figure you'll make a panic
>stop to avoid hitting them.
Same for 'cycling up here in RI, with the added bonus of having the
drivers really not care whether a left turn (or any other maneuver you
can think of) is permitted or not.
--
Joel Plutchak, Research Programmer/Analyst
"It turned out to be, you know, not a pleasant day." - Reginald Denny