$3.4M Quick Release Award
Luis Bernhardt
Canada) where a Marin County jury awarded a guy $3.4 million because
he sustained head injuries because his front quick release came off
his mountain bike.
Now, I don't know all the facts involved, but if it's just a case of a
guy not doing up his front quick release properly, then I am
absolutely outraged. Here is another example of this North American
"it's not your fault, it's somebody else's" syndrome. Why can't
people take personal responsibility anymore?
As a result of this total incompetent's inability to deal with a
device as simple as a quick release, I will now be forced to saw or
file off the new restraining devices manufacturers will be obligated
to include on their future dropouts.
It's too bad the case couldn't have had a jury of the guy's peers -
i.e., real cyclists - who would have just laughed and thrown this
frivolous case out of court.
Now, if the front wheel came off because it was one of those
newfangled ultra-light titanium q-r's with the rotating handles which
happened to break, then he probably deserves his settlement. But I
suspect this was not the case. The article states, "Fiorto's mountain
bike did not include safety devices that would have prevented the
front wheel from falling off." Sounds like the q-r wasn't tightened
properly. What did he do, close the release then try to tighten it by
screwing it in? (I actually amazed one triathlete by showing him how
the quick release worked. He thought you screwed it in. It's a
wonder his wheels hadn't already fallen off...) Which is to say, it's
probably a more common mistake than we think, but it's the fault of
the bike seller, not a design deficiency due to lack of "devices that
would have prevented the wheel from falling off."
Well, if any of the defendants want to appeal, they can feel free to
use my posting. Read my lips: Standard steel cam-type quick releases
do not just come undone when attached properly. In all my 20-odd
years of riding bikes with quick releases, I have *never* had one come
undone, nor have I ever heard of anyone whom I deemed to be a
competent cyclist have one come undone unless they were doing
something stupid, like trying to tighten it while riding (e.g., John
Eustace).
*** Luis Bernhardt <luis_be...@mindlink.bc.ca> Vancouver, Canada ***
"One should either be a work of art, or wear a work of art." - Oscar Wilde
"...or ride a work of art." - lb
Joshua_Putnam
>THIS IS BECOMING A STERILE LIFE BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE THINK THAT
>AMERICA HAS A SAFETY NET FOR EVERY SITUATION!!!!!
>I don't like the idea of putting warning labels on every part sold in
>bike stores, but if it comes down to labels or laws, the choice is
>obvious (at least for THIS cyclist)!!!
That's why Cannondale's new mountain bike owner's manual has
grown to 100 pages, and includes such warnings as:
Warning: Downhill mountain biking can lead to serious
accidents. Even with state-of-the-art protective safety
gear, you could be seriously injured or killed when downhill
riding.
It also reminds the buyer that downhilling "is to voluntarily
assume a very large risk."
I didn't get any owner's manual at all when I bought my Bianchi
Grizzly a few years back, and I don't recall anything in the Rock
Shox manual about killing myself, but all the injuries I've had
are my own responsibility, not theirs.
--
Jo...@WOLFE.net is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
Bike parts for sale: finger Joshua...@gonzo.wolfe.net for list.
Tom Kenney
>I read in VeloNews (Aug 7/95 - we get them about a week later here in
>Canada) where a Marin County jury awarded a guy $3.4 million because
>he sustained head injuries because his front quick release came off
>his mountain bike.
>
>Now, I don't know all the facts involved, but if it's just a case of a
>guy not doing up his front quick release properly, then I am
>absolutely outraged. Here is another example of this North American
>"it's not your fault, it's somebody else's" syndrome. Why can't
>people take personal responsibility anymore?
>
<more truth deleted for space>
You're absolutely right!! I have learned in my trip through life that
you only become a "victim" if you place yourself in a vulnerable
position. The guy who sued must realize that, by riding a bicycle at
all, he has put himself at great risk of personal injury, and should be
willing to accept any consequences of his actions (not binding his QR, or
at least not inspecting it for damage/irregs).
If people like this keep sueing whomever they feel is responsible, there
will be so much legislation on the books that humans will be forced to
live in padded rooms and won't be given any objects with which to
entertain oneself!!
THIS IS BECOMING A STERILE LIFE BECAUSE TOO MANY PEOPLE THINK THAT
AMERICA HAS A SAFETY NET FOR EVERY SITUATION!!!!!
I don't like the idea of putting warning labels on every part sold in
bike stores, but if it comes down to labels or laws, the choice is
obvious (at least for THIS cyclist)!!!
Tom Kenney
tke...@primenet.com
Mike Iglesias
Luis Bernhardt <luis_be...@mindlink.bc.ca> wrote:
>The article states, "Fiorto's mountain
>bike did not include safety devices that would have prevented the
>front wheel from falling off." Sounds like the q-r wasn't tightened
>properly. What did he do, close the release then try to tighten it by
>screwing it in? (I actually amazed one triathlete by showing him how
>the quick release worked. He thought you screwed it in. It's a
>wonder his wheels hadn't already fallen off...)
There are people who just cannot grasp the "complexities" of using
a quick release. I showed a former neighbor several times how to use
his, but he never figured it out. I know the bike shop where he got
the bike showed him because he told me they did (and I've seen them
do it for other customers).
--
Mike Iglesias Internet: igle...@draco.acs.uci.edu
University of California, Irvine phone: (714) 824-6926
Office of Academic Computing FAX: (714) 824-2069
Joshua_Putnam
>In a previous article, Joe Boyd <> wrote:
>>QRs have been the source of many accidents and some large damage awards. It
>>would seem that dealers should be familiar with this problem and insure
>>that buyers are aware of how to use safety/conveinence features....
>Did you mean "insure" or "ensure"?
In this case it had better be insure, not ensure, because there's
no way I can think of that the dealer can ensure that a third
party buying a used bike will know how to use the skewer. Has
anyone here received a used owner's manual along with a used
bike? Let alone training by the original shop?
jim frost
>QRs have been the source of many accidents and some large damage awards. It
>would seem that dealers should be familiar with this problem and insure
>riding at night with only reflectors, ala the Derby/Raliegh award in New
>Jersey).
Unfortunately the salesman is confronted with a lot of people who
answer "yes" when asked whether or not a customer is familiar with QR
devices. Lots of us do know how to use them, and it really doesn't
take too much in the brain department to figure them out, so it's not
particularly unreasonable for them to accept such an answer. While
I'd understand if the salesman were required to give me such a
lecture, I wouldn't appreciate it.
Unfortunately we have a lot of people with more money than brains who
would rather say "yes" than admit they don't know something. We also
have a lot of people who get the lecture and promptly forget it. Both
of those groups are what I call "lawsuit-oriented," and both groups
are highly likely to buy things simply because everyone else is buying
them.
>I agree that the seller (manufacturer/dealer) should make the product fool
>proof, but can't make it damn-fool proof.
"It's impossible to make something foolproof because fools are so
ingenious." (Dunno who said it, but it's true.) At some point you
have to draw the line between trying to make something idiot-proof and
defeating the purpose of the thing in the first place; lawyer's lips
are one place where I think they went too far.
The only way we're ever going to get sanity back into our legal system
is to put weight on personal responsibility. When I do something
stupid, it's *not* the manufacturer's fault. When something fails to
work as advertised, it *is* the manufacturer's fault. I have never
understood why that concept eludes our legal system.
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
--
http://world.std.com/~jimf
jim frost
>In all my 20-odd
>years of riding bikes with quick releases, I have *never* had one come
>undone, nor have I ever heard of anyone whom I deemed to be a
>competent cyclist have one come undone unless they were doing
>something stupid, like trying to tighten it while riding (e.g., John
>Eustace).
It's not all that uncommon for sticks and things to unlock an QR
spindle on an MTB. This is pretty easily avoided by directing the
release handle straight backward. In any case it's clear that such
releases are not a manufacturing defect.
Jeffrey L. Bell
>QRs have been the source of many accidents and some large damage awards. It
>would seem that dealers should be familiar with this problem and insure
>that buyers are aware of how to use safety/conveinence features....
Did you mean "insure" or "ensure"?
-Jeff
Steve Nguyen
>spindle on an MTB. This is pretty easily avoided by directing the
>release handle straight backward. In any case it's clear that such
>releases are not a manufacturing defect.
>
This is a dead subject. So long as our legal systems stays this way, people will seek to move responsibility for their own ingnoran=
ce onto other's shoulders, or wallets as the case may be.
Just file down the laywer lips on your fork and be done with it. More importantly, if you see someone using their quick release inc=
orrectly, let them know the proper way. After, it could be some kid's parent...
Joshua_Putnam
>>From: igle...@draco.acs.uci.edu (Mike Iglesias)
>>There are people who just cannot grasp the "complexities" of using
>>a quick release. I showed a former neighbor several times how to use
>>his, but he never figured it out. I know the bike shop where he got
>>the bike showed him because he told me they did (and I've seen them
>>do it for other customers).
> Is he able to grasp the complexities of turning an ignition key,
>setting the automatic transmission in the right place, turning on the
>wipers, [....]
It seems to me, from what I've seen both on the road and in bike
shops, that the number of people who can't understand how to use
a quick release has gone up a lot since th introduction of lawyer
lips on fork tips. It used to be easy to explain that, once
properly adjusted, the Q/R handle was not to be used as a wing
nut. Now, however, many skewer/fork combinations require the
wing nut action every time to get the skewer past the lumps. For
some reason this makes it impossible for some people to stop
turning and flip the handle instead.
It's no wonder automatic transmissions are so popular in the U.S.!
I suspect many of these same people couldn't understand using
both a clutch and a stick shift in the same shifting maneuver.
They are essentially mechanically illiterate.
Gordon D. Renkes
>There are people who just cannot grasp the "complexities" of using
>a quick release. I showed a former neighbor several times how to use
>his, but he never figured it out. I know the bike shop where he got
>the bike showed him because he told me they did (and I've seen them
>do it for other customers).
Is he able to grasp the complexities of turning an ignition key,
setting the automatic transmission in the right place, turning on the
wipers, pushing the gas pedal, pushing the brake pedal, manipulating the
turn signal lever, adjusting the heater/air conditioner/defroster, turning
on the lights, setting the parking brake, setting the cruise control,
adjusting the rear view mirror, buckling the seat belt, setting the radio,
phoning on his cellular phone, etc.?
?!
Gordon Renkes renk...@osu.edu
THE Ohio State University
120 West 18th Avenue
Columbus Ohio 43210 USA "Just the FAQ's, Ma'am."
Dr. Ted
luis_be...@mindlink.bc.ca (Luis Bernhardt) wrote:
> I read in VeloNews (Aug 7/95 - we get them about a week later here in
> Canada) where a Marin County jury awarded a guy $3.4 million because
> he sustained head injuries because his front quick release came off
> his mountain bike.
>
> Now, if the front wheel came off because it was one of those
> newfangled ultra-light titanium q-r's with the rotating handles which
> happened to break, then he probably deserves his settlement. But I
> suspect this was not the case. The article states, "Fiorto's mountain
> bike did not include safety devices that would have prevented the
> front wheel from falling off."
You guys need some more facts before you all jump on the Dan Quayle
"lawyers are sucking the life out of US industry" bandwagon. If the guys
bike didn't have "lawyer lips" then the manufacturer is ignoring what has
become the industry standard for 2 level redundancy in wheel attachment.
Given the "impact" of a wheel attachment failure it makes sense to have at
least two levels of redundancy. Almost ALL of the bike industry
understands that. But who was the judgment against? The QR manufacturer?
or the Bike manufacturer? Is this case real? We don't have the facts but
perhaps the jury did..
A little background: Remember this "tort madness" is largely a
Republican smokescreen, the woman from the MacDonalds judgment had her
award significantly reduced, like most Jury awards, and I'm not sure she
got anything.. She was very old and had 3rd degree burns which required
skin grafts and weeks of hospitilization, her med bills were over $10k,
and MacD's offered her $800, even though they had been warned repeatedly
that their superheating of the coffee (~185°F) was a disaster waiting to
happen. The jury sought to punish their callousness, and MacD's could
afford it... Remember juries are the only way little people usually have a
chance to strike out at a big foe, the big foe in return can grind out the
propaganda and get lip service from lapdog politicians.
Dig deeper, we all need to be informed, if you just consume, you can end
up getting fed crap.
Dr. Ted
Doug Hood
cyclists that know something about quick-releases and how to put on wheels.
John Sully
In article <noone-11089...@cisco-ts5-line7.uoregon.edu>, no...@nowhere.org writes:
> You guys need some more facts before you all jump on the Dan Quayle
> "lawyers are sucking the life out of US industry" bandwagon. If the guys
> bike didn't have "lawyer lips" then the manufacturer is ignoring what has
> become the industry standard for 2 level redundancy in wheel attachment.
Yeah, and I grind them off because I've been using QR's since 1970 and have
never had a problem with them. The reason for lawyer lips is people that
don't know how to use QR's. Unfortunately, lawyer lips tend to reinforce
the misconceptions these people have about how QR's should operate. There
must be a better way. Maybe Yak has the right idea with the QR used on
the "Steelhead" bike mount. A long-throw QR which gets around lawyer lips,
but which would probably allow a QR used "wingnut" style to retain the
wheel when used with lawyer lips.
> A little background: Remember this "tort madness" is largely a
> Republican smokescreen, the woman from the MacDonalds judgment had her
> award significantly reduced, like most Jury awards, and I'm not sure she
> got anything.. She was very old and had 3rd degree burns which required
> skin grafts and weeks of hospitilization, her med bills were over $10k,
> and MacD's offered her $800, even though they had been warned repeatedly
> that their superheating of the coffee (~185°F) was a disaster waiting to
> happen. The jury sought to punish their callousness, and MacD's could
> afford it... Remember juries are the only way little people usually have a
> chance to strike out at a big foe, the big foe in return can grind out the
> propaganda and get lip service from lapdog politicians.
> Dig deeper, we all need to be informed, if you just consume, you can end
> up getting fed crap.
This part of your post I can do nothing but agree with wholeheartedly. And
without reservation. I think that if someone would bother to go lookup the
case they would find something much different than reported in the press.
By the way, the *facts* which Dr. Ted discusses were covered in a decent
article in Consumer Reports about 3 months ago. McDonald's is (hopefully
way) very proud(!) of the fact that their corporate policy was to keep
coffee heated to 190F. That's fucking hot. Did you ever wonder why you
had to let McDonald's coffee cool for several minutes before you would
not burn your mouth drinking it? That is why. Even though there had
been several other small judgements against them for burns caused by coffee
which was too hot they retained their policy of maintaining a 190F temp.
It serves them right for serving bad coffee anyway :).
--John
Richard Hennick
no...@nowhere.org (Dr. Ted) writes:
>
> You guys need some more facts before you all jump on the Dan Quayle
> "lawyers are sucking the life out of US industry" bandwagon.
Hmmm. Are you, or have you ever been, a lawyer? :) :) If not, what
exactly are you a "doctor" of?
> If the guys bike didn't have "lawyer lips" then the manufacturer is
> ignoring what has become the industry standard for 2 level redundancy in
> wheel attachment. Given the "impact" of a wheel attachment failure it
> makes sense to have at least two levels of redundancy.
Well, the main problem here is that "lawyer lips" almost certainly *reduce*
the chance that someone is going to use the QR correctly (which if used
properly would supply sufficient force by itself to hold the wheel in
place), and therefore *increase* the chance that the wheel will not be
fastened securely! So the "2 level redundancy" you speak of is really no
such thing; it merely substitutes one type of the user's mechanical
ignorance for another, and there is still actually only one level of
security to be defeated.
Is that what you would call a safety device? I would call it compounding
the problem, myself, while at the same time doing nothing to address the
underlying issues of mechanical incompetence, and of the sale and promotion
of bicycles as mere toys which do not need the maintenance or attention to
detail worthy of any other vehicle. (We have "illiteracy" and
"innumeracy"; we need a corresponding word for the lack of "mechanicacy"!)
And a secondary problem is that in this particular case the bike was bought
secondhand; therefore, whether "lawyer lips" had been installed or not, it
is highly unlikely that the manufacturer's instructions (if any) for the
proper use of a QR would have been conveyed along with the bike.
--
I've all my wisdom teeth |Crash Test Dummies
Two up top, two beneath |"Bereft Man's Song"
And yet I'll recognize |
My mouth says things that aren't so wise |ric...@mindlink.bc.ca
Mark Hickey
gre...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Gordon D. Renkes) wrote:
> >From: igle...@draco.acs.uci.edu (Mike Iglesias)
>
> >There are people who just cannot grasp the "complexities" of using
> >a quick release. I showed a former neighbor several times how to use
> >his, but he never figured it out. I know the bike shop where he got
> >the bike showed him because he told me they did (and I've seen them
> >do it for other customers).
>
> Is he able to grasp the complexities of turning an ignition key,
> setting the automatic transmission in the right place, turning on the
> wipers, pushing the gas pedal, pushing the brake pedal, manipulating the
> turn signal lever, adjusting the heater/air conditioner/defroster, turning
> on the lights, setting the parking brake, setting the cruise control,
> adjusting the rear view mirror, buckling the seat belt, setting the radio,
> phoning on his cellular phone, etc.?
More to the point, imagine this person trying to figure out Grip Shifts,
SPD pedals, proper tire inflation, saddle height, or *gasp* cantalever
brake adjustment. I guess the only reason there aren't a lot more lawsuits
is 'cuz a lot of these folks eliminate themselves from the gene pool
before their front wheel has a chance to fall off.....
Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
Joshua_Putnam
>You guys need some more facts before you all jump on the Dan Quayle
>"lawyers are sucking the life out of US industry" bandwagon. If the guys
>bike didn't have "lawyer lips" then the manufacturer is ignoring what has
>become the industry standard for 2 level redundancy in wheel attachment.
I think you need more facts, too.
The bike was three years old and heavily modified, and the
injured rider had bought it used when it was a year old. The
bike originally was equipped with peg washers instead of lawyer
lips, but these had been removed by either the injured rider or
the previous owner. Note that many bikes have no secondary wheel
retention devices, and many that come with lawyer lips have them
removed -- should the shop be liable to third party buyers if
the original owner files off the lips to make the Q/R work
properly?
The bike had the stock fork, headset, seatpost, and derailleurs,
but the frame and most other parts were replacements.
The court did not allow the defense to present testimony on the
rarity of Q/R accidents, and were not allowed to introduce
documentation from the Consumer Products Safety Commission
indicating that such problems are extremely rare, or to let the
jury know that the CPSC does not require any form of secondary
retention devices, having found the stadard Q/R skewer safe when
used properly. (Of course, even if Q/R skewers were dangerous,
the CPSC might label them safe since their popularity is a result
of the CPSC's ban on wing nuts.)
[Most of these tidbits are from Bicycle Retailer & Industry News,
which gives great attention to the number of unfounded lawsuits
alleging defects that were clearly rider error.]
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Dr. Ted writes:
> You guys need some more facts before you all jump on the Dan Quayle
> "lawyers are sucking the life out of US industry" bandwagon. If the guys
> bike didn't have "lawyer lips" then the manufacturer is ignoring what has
> become the industry standard for 2 level redundancy in wheel attachment.
There is no such industry standard. If a Taiwan manufacturer builds 10000
bikes, 3000 of these bikes for the US, 3000 of these bikes will have
anti-quick-release forks.
There is a lawyer standard only, laughed at by every industry engineer.
> A little background:
> She was very old and had 3rd degree burns which required
> skin grafts and weeks of hospitilization, her med bills were over $10k,
And what's the problem about this? If a politician wants to be elected, he
or she has to promise policies that make such old ladies starve to death.
The voters who want this kind of policies, have therefore no right to
complain about old ladies starving to death after an accident. It is
exactly how they wanted it to be.
If they are uncomfortable only with the easily foreseeable results of their
own action, not with their own action, this is just one more example of
people who are not willing to take responsibility.
Sure it is possible to provide social security via the industry, not via
taxes. That's how it works in many countries, and if you buy a Sachs disk
brake for your MTB, you are also paying for the unemployment insurance of
some workers in Schweinfurt, like it or not.
But it is the worst idea of all to let the industry pay for social security
by funny court rule. It gives less product quality to everybody.
hajo
P.S.: I will have to avoid to invite you to my home. You sure would try to
sue me, since my coffee is as hot as McDonalds coffee (though of better
quality).
--
UPGRADE TO 8 BIT!
Modern newsreaders can show French (Ç), German (ß), Spanish (ñ), and more.
Kristan Roberge
>
>
> Dr. Ted writes:
>
> > You guys need some more facts before you all jump on the Dan Quayle
> > "lawyers are sucking the life out of US industry" bandwagon. If the guys
> > bike didn't have "lawyer lips" then the manufacturer is ignoring what has
> > become the industry standard for 2 level redundancy in wheel attachment.
>
>
> There is no such industry standard. If a Taiwan manufacturer builds 10000
> bikes, 3000 of these bikes for the US, 3000 of these bikes will have
> anti-quick-release forks.
> There is a lawyer standard only, laughed at by every industry engineer.
Also the silly nubbs, which are intended to prevent lawsuits (you realize
these things got started in the US right? where any schmuck from a 7-11
can sue for millions because he's a moron but has a good lawyer) only
started being added since about 1990. Before that, for decades, they did
NOT exist. People used quick-releases without any problems. No lawsuits.
Mike Taffe
>
>The bike had the stock fork, headset, seatpost, and derailleurs,
>but the frame and most other parts were replacements.
So who was being sued, exactly? The maker of the since-replaced frame? The
maker of the new, replacement frame? The original point-of-sale retailer?
mike
--
Michael Taffe * http://psy.ucsd.edu/~mtaffe/mtaffe.html
mta...@ucsd.edu * http://psy.ucsd.edu/~mtaffe/cycle.html
Joshua_Putnam
>In article <40jmc7$8...@news1.wolfe.net>, Joshua_Putnam <jo...@Wolfe.NET> wrote:
>>
>>The bike had the stock fork, headset, seatpost, and derailleurs,
>>but the frame and most other parts were replacements.
> ^^^^^^^ ??
>So who was being sued, exactly? The maker of the since-replaced frame? The
>maker of the new, replacement frame? The original point-of-sale retailer?
The judgement was against the manufacturers of the frame and the
fork -- made by different companies. American Recreation and the
owner of the original retail shop had settled out of court when
it was obvious the deck was stacked against them. The frame
maker was assigned 35% liability, the fork maker 15%. The jury
considered American Rcreation 35% responsible and the shop owner
10%. The bike shop has shut down. The Q/R skewer manufacturer
was not being sued.
I still can't believe a competent mountain bike racer would say
such absolute crap about quick releases: John Howard testified
that the skewer nut's threads "will back-off after a time." I
guess they knew the couldn't show a reasonable mechanism for the
cam to vibrate loose so they attacked the other end of the
skewer.
Mike Iglesias
>The only way we're ever going to get sanity back into our legal system
>is to put weight on personal responsibility. When I do something
>stupid, it's *not* the manufacturer's fault. When something fails to
>work as advertised, it *is* the manufacturer's fault. I have never
>understood why that concept eludes our legal system.
There's no money in it, that's why.
Doug Hood
>I still can't believe a competent mountain bike racer would say
>such absolute crap about quick releases: John Howard testified
>that the skewer nut's threads "will back-off after a time." I
>guess they knew the couldn't show a reasonable mechanism for the
>cam to vibrate loose so they attacked the other end of the
>skewer.
Assuming that this guy was truthful (and I personally believe that
anyone who says a QR will back-off over time is a liar until they
can produce the QR that behaves this way), why would any competent
mountain biker not 1) replace the QR or 2) put on a couple of nuts
and give up on the QR altogether?
doug
William Kellagher
>
>You guys need some more facts before you all jump on the Dan Quayle
>"lawyers are sucking the life out of US industry" bandwagon. If the guys
>bike didn't have "lawyer lips" then the manufacturer is ignoring what has
>become the industry standard for 2 level redundancy in wheel attachment.
>understands that. But who was the judgment against? The QR manufacturer?
>or the Bike manufacturer? Is this case real? We don't have the facts but
>perhaps the jury did..
bike shop that sold the bike, the bicycle manufacturer(Mongoose), and the
vendor who made the fork for the bicycle manufacurer. Interestingly, the
manufacturer of the quick release was not named. Each of the defendants
was assigned a certain percentage of the $3.4 mil of the judgement that
it was responsible to pay. Yes the case is real, I read the report in
Bicycle Retailer and Industry News. According to the reprot I read, the
case turned largely on jury sympathy for the plaintiff, who was a champion
swimmer, and local swimming coach, and on the percieved veracity of the
various expert witnesses who testified. John Howard, 5 time US national
cycling champ testified for the plaintiff, and claimed that quick releases
vibrate loose over time and that he'd had similar accidents because
hes quick release had vibrated loose (complete hogwash in my opinion).
Jurers interviewed after the case said that they believed Howard more than
the defense experts because they seemed to be simply restating the company
line about quick releases.
Bill Kellagher
Boulder CO
America's Bicycling Theme Park
Tom Kenney
It's not the legal system, it's the people who have been told (and
believe) that there is free money out there for those who are willing to
be a schmuck! I've been cut often by the sharp edges on my chainrings,
scraped by misc. other protruding parts, scraped by rocks when my rope
stretched in a fall (climbing), etc. I don't feel that anyone was
responsible for these bites but me! Yes, you are really right! We need
to have a "Personal Responsibility" training course and administer
"Leave-Your-House" licenses!!!
Tom Kenney
tke...@primenet.com
PS - Product liability is not the only place the legislative boom has
plagued us and our "legal system"!!! Look everywhere!!! I don't even
hafta cite specifics!!!
Hans-Joachim Zierke
jim frost writes:
> It's an elegant workaround to user-stupidity lawsuits, but they're a
> royal pain in that they remove the "quick" in "quick release."
> Luckily they are also a solution that can be altered by the user; I
> filed 'em off almost immediately.
Having to damage the coating of my frame to get a working bicycle is
unacceptable.
What about sueing the bike company for not providing a working product?
"Quick release" is sure false advertising in this case.
hajo
Dave Wiesenhahn
no...@nowhere.org (Dr. Ted) wrote:
[...report of someone suing over a bike injury because a wheel fell off...]
>
> You guys need some more facts before you all jump on the Dan Quayle
> "lawyers are sucking the life out of US industry" bandwagon. If the guys
> bike didn't have "lawyer lips" then the manufacturer is ignoring what has
> become the industry standard for 2 level redundancy in wheel attachment.
Since when is 2-level redundancy for wheel retention an industry
standard? Maybe for low-end bikes, but I've yet to see anything other
that a qr mechanism (i.e., one level) on any bike costing over $250.
> Given the "impact" of a wheel attachment failure it makes sense to have at
> least two levels of redundancy.
Maybe to you, but I'm satisified with one level of wheel retention (used
properly!), as are most (or all) of the bikers I know.
[...]
> A little background: Remember this "tort madness" is largely a
> Republican smokescreen,
I wouldn't say it's a smokescreen; perhaps a _cause celebre_ that they've
picked up.
> the woman from the MacDonalds judgment had her
> award significantly reduced, like most Jury awards, and I'm not sure she
> got anything..
But I betcha her lawyer did.
> She was very old and had 3rd degree burns which required
> skin grafts and weeks of hospitilization, her med bills were over $10k,
> and MacD's offered her $800, even though they had been warned repeatedly
> that their superheating of the coffee (~185°F) was a disaster waiting to
> happen.
Who exactly warned them? Were they violating the law?
I'll betcha that the woman also had been warned not to spill coffee on her
lap. My mother used to tell me many times that eating while I drive is
also 'a disaster waiting to happen.'
> The jury sought to punish their callousness,
'Callousness' is not the right word, unless you think we shold call the
victim an 'idiot' for spilling the coffee.
>and MacD's could afford it...
So since they could afford it, it's OK to sue the bejeezus out of them?
> Remember juries are the only way little people usually have a
> chance to strike out at a big foe,
First of all, don't think of every company as a 'foe.' This is the type
of attitude that prompts people to file these marginal lawsuits.
Second, there *are* other ways to challenge something you think is wrong:
write to them. True, it may not always work, but this proves that you
were wrong in being so quick to sue.
> the big foe in return can grind out the
> propaganda and get lip service from lapdog politicians.
Gee, earlier you said the Republicans were against this sort of legal abuse.
> Dig deeper, we all need to be informed, if you just consume, you can end
> up getting fed crap.
Agreed.
> Dr. Ted
Dave Wiesenhahn | This world's full of strange behavior
IDA | Every man has to be his own savior
Alexandria, VA | Johnny Clegg via J.B.
dwies...@ida.org |
Peter W. Rathmann
> They put two lips on the tips of the dropout, just big enough that the
> wheel will not fall off even if the QR is released. In order to
> remove the wheel you must loosen the skewer.
>
> It's an elegant workaround to user-stupidity lawsuits, but they're a
> royal pain in that they remove the "quick" in "quick release."
I wouldn't go so far as to call them "elegant" since they also have the
disadvantage that the quick release tension must be readjusted with each use.
This makes it more likely that a user will sometime fail to make the QR
tight enough and impair the bike's handling.
> Luckily they are also a solution that can be altered by the user; I
> filed 'em off almost immediately.
I agree that the ease of removal of these nubs is their best design feature.
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Kristan Roberge writes:
> Also the silly nubbs, which are intended to prevent lawsuits (you realize
> these things got started in the US right?
What kind of "nubbs"?
jim frost
>Kristan Roberge writes:
>> Also the silly nubbs, which are intended to prevent lawsuits (you realize
>> these things got started in the US right?
>What kind of "nubbs"?
They put two lips on the tips of the dropout, just big enough that the
wheel will not fall off even if the QR is released. In order to
remove the wheel you must loosen the skewer.
This allows the wheel to be removed without tools (arguably the
greatest value of QRs) but eliminates the possibility that the wheel
will fall off if the QR is not properly fastened.
It's an elegant workaround to user-stupidity lawsuits, but they're a
royal pain in that they remove the "quick" in "quick release."
Luckily they are also a solution that can be altered by the user; I
filed 'em off almost immediately.
jim frost
ji...@world.std.com
--
http://world.std.com/~jimf
J. Lee
In a previous article, jo...@Wolfe.NET (Joshua_Putnam) says:
>The judgement was against the manufacturers of the frame and the
>fork -- made by different companies. American Recreation and the
>owner of the original retail shop had settled out of court when
>it was obvious the deck was stacked against them. The frame
>maker was assigned 35% liability, the fork maker 15%. The jury
>considered American Rcreation 35% responsible and the shop owner
>10%. The bike shop has shut down. The Q/R skewer manufacturer
>was not being sued.
I'm surprised that the Estate of Tullio Campagnolo wasn't
sued for his inventing the damned thing....
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Hans-Joachim Zierke writes:
> > Also the silly nubbs, which are intended to prevent lawsuits (you realize
> > these things got started in the US right?
>
> What kind of "nubbs"?
The "nubbs" are what I call an "anti-quick-reasease" fork. Sorry for the
confusion, I did not understand that "also".
Shawn Storm
>such absolute crap about quick releases: John Howard testified
>that the skewer nut's threads "will back-off after a time.
The esteemed champion John Howard aka. "Ambulance Chaser" or "Idiot Supporter".
How incredibly disappointing that this ex-champion would stoop so low!
How much mechanical engineering training does Howard have to make a credible
witness, in the mysterious loosening FQR?! What minimum intelligence does it
take to comprehend "Pilot-Error" of a improperly-tightened QR causing the wheel
to roll out! If while driving a car with the door open you fall out, can it
be anyone elses fault; uhh the seat belt didn't automatically pin you in! %^)
Remember the $6M settlement last year against Derby bikes
from the guy who rode without any lights and got hit!
..and more bad news.. we all pay for these idiots and their lawyers.
The bike industry's prices are raised to cover idiot liability insurance.
Reduced industry revenue impacts R & D spending and therefor slows technical
advancement. Or worse in this QR example caused the companies to lose their
business. And common sense people will suffer the burden of more idiot-proof
laws. We are unfortunately headed towards a no responsibility society.
This is shamelessly parallels drivers who maim or kill cyclist enjoy
responsibility-free "rights" and minimal judgements.
This expensive Howard-QR le$$on is one no ethical person should follow.
-ss
Kevin Leslie Schaper
Hans-Joachim Zierke <ha...@quijote.in-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>
>Having to damage the coating of my frame to get a working bicycle is
>unacceptable.
>
>What about sueing the bike company for not providing a working product?
>"Quick release" is sure false advertising in this case.
>
>
>hajo
a) the bike still works
b) it's still 'quick' compared to the alternative of using tools
c) wasn't the whole point of this thread that people are too quick to sue?
kevin
Hans-Joachim Zierke
Kevin Leslie Schaper writes:
> a) the bike still works
>
> b) it's still 'quick' compared to the alternative of using tools
I once saw this "solution" on a Trek bike of a friend before I filed it
away for her. Nuts are _much_ faster, at least for riders with a little
seatbag. If this would be the only choice, I would prefer nuts.
> c) wasn't the whole point of this thread that people are too quick to sue?
Sure. And after a this big reward for stupidity, US bike companies have to
fear more of this. How much of this reward goes to the lawyer? An open
invitation.
Either you get funny bikes as a result, or higher prices. It's always the
customer who pays the insurance companies.
ru...@cadvision.com
> In <noone-11089...@cisco-ts5-line7.uoregon.edu>
no...@nowhere.org (Dr. Ted) writes:
>
> >"lawyers are sucking the life out of US industry" bandwagon. If the guys
> >bike didn't have "lawyer lips" then the manufacturer is ignoring what has
> >become the industry standard for 2 level redundancy in wheel attachment.
>
<Lucid correction snipped...>
> (Of course, even if Q/R skewers were dangerous,
> the CPSC might label them safe since their popularity is a result
> of the CPSC's ban on wing nuts.)
>
You know, it occors to me in reading all of this that perhaps the cycling industry is
doing themselves a disservice by not only providing Q/R's, but by labelling them
so. I wonder what the defense would have been had the quick release skewers
being named "positive wheel locks"?
And just to dredge up another old one, in the "John Howard as expert witness
saga" was probably not presented to the jury stating that he was PAID for his
testimony. In medical malpractice suits the fees can be into the thousands per
day. I mean, really, one can get anything stated in a court of law for the right
amount.
Tom
Mike Wright
>>I still can't believe a competent mountain bike racer would say
>>such absolute crap about quick releases: John Howard testified
>>that the skewer nut's threads "will back-off after a time.
>The esteemed champion John Howard aka. "Ambulance Chaser" or "Idiot Supporter".
>How incredibly disappointing that this ex-champion would stoop so low!
A question to ask is:
Was John Howard a *paid* expert for the plaintiff? Not that he would
tailor his testimony to fit the wishes of his payors, but the issue of
paid experts is often controversial.
Mike Wright
wri...@lds.loral.com
mdwr...@packet.net
Al Knoll
lawsuits.
Watched "Hell Freezes Over" on PBS last night. The Eagles have a new
song. It's called "Get Over It!" Give it a listen. It's relevant.
On a sign in the tramway at Grandes Montets it says rudely translated:
You can't sue the mountain.
If you ski Chamonix and are injured or die and the reason in not
equipment failure you are SOL with respect sueing someone for your
misfortune.
If your're poisoned by lunch or shredded by a grooming machine that's
another story.
But the responsibility for being there and doing that (skiing) in the
mountains is yours alone as it should be.
As long as the insurance leeches and barrister sharks have their way
we're doomed.
--
___ / __ __/ ____/ Al Knoll HP Performance Technology /
/ / / / Center Roseville, CA, USA 95747 /
_____/ / / 916.785.9453 (Telnet 785-9453) /
/ / / email: a...@hpptc38.rose.hp.com /
__/ __/ ______/ ___________________________________/
ru...@cadvision.com
> The small aircraft industry in the US is kaput. Lawsuits or potential
> lawsuits.
Actually, I seem to recall reading that President Clinton recently signed a bill
limiting liability for small aircraft manufacturers in an attempt to restart that once
vibrant industry.
>
> Watched "Hell Freezes Over" on PBS last night. The Eagles have a new
> song. It's called "Get Over It!" Give it a listen. It's relevant.
Spot on!! Great song and absolutely relevant. Although urban mythology says
that Don Henley was sued by the American Bar association for the line "let's kill
all the lawyers, let's kill them tonight!" (oozing irony here...n'est ce pas?)
Tom
==============================================================
Tom Ruta, ISP "Nunc hoc in marmore
Manager, Information Services non est incision"
Tarragon Oil and Gas Limited
FAX: (403)262-5324
PHONE: (403)974-7690 Email: ru...@cadvision.com
WWW ---> http://www.cuug.ab.ca:8001/~rutat/togl.html
==============================================================
Derrick Brasslett
> You guys need some more facts before you all jump on the Dan Quayle
> "lawyers are sucking the life out of US industry" bandwagon. If the guys
> bike didn't have "lawyer lips" then the manufacturer is ignoring what has
> become the industry standard for 2 level redundancy in wheel attachment.
Well, it IS tough for me to be on the same side as Dan Quayle. But in
this case, he has a valid point. "2 level redundancy"? Oh yes, PLEASE
protect us from ourselves, or we'll SUE!
> Given the "impact" of a wheel attachment failure it makes sense to have at
> least two levels of redundancy. Almost ALL of the bike industry
> understands that.
It only makes sense to THEIR lawyers, to protect the company from the boobs
out their who simply MUST find someone to blame for their stupidity.
> But who was the judgment against? The QR manufacturer?
> or the Bike manufacturer? Is this case real? We don't have the facts but
> perhaps the jury did..
> A little background: Remember this "tort madness" is largely a
> Republican smokescreen, the woman from the MacDonalds judgment had her
> award significantly reduced, like most Jury awards, and I'm not sure she
> got anything.. She was very old and had 3rd degree burns which required
> skin grafts and weeks of hospitilization, her med bills were over $10k,
> and MacD's offered her $800, even though they had been warned repeatedly
> that their superheating of the coffee (~185°F) was a disaster waiting to
> happen. The jury sought to punish their callousness, and MacD's could
> afford it... Remember juries are the only way little people usually have a
> chance to strike out at a big foe, the big foe in return can grind out the
> propaganda and get lip service from lapdog politicians.
Spoken like a true tort specialist -- tell us, are you a lawyer?
Yep ... SUE the bike shop that sold you a bicycle and didn't weld the
damn wheels on.
SUE the homeowner that didn't clear the ice, thus causing you
to slip and fall whilst you attempted to break into their home.
SUE the bar that served you a beer before you went off the road.
If you screw up, just find someone to SUE.
> Dig deeper, we all need to be informed, if you just consume, you can end
> up getting fed crap.
Yeah, like the crap you're feeding us here. Sorry if I'm going overboard,
I just throughly disagree and can't let it slide.
Derrick
> Dr. Ted
Jeff B
the customer in the correct use of the Quick Release Lever, and
so it's his fault... Most people, when they get a new bike are
(1) So excited and anxious thay don't hear a damn thing,(2) Hear
what they want to hear, and only that. ( The same malady seems to
strike when they are shopping for the "Best Price").(3) Don't pay
a bit of attention to what's being said about safety. And..(4)
Never,ever, ever read the owners manual that is given them.
Quick release skewers have been used since the 1930's and haven't
really changed.(Except to make their use more difficult, thru
Lawyer Tips), and it's about time people learned to use them
instead of lawyers!
--
jeff b Bikesport
Jerry Penny
You talk about people learning to use a quick release properly instead of
using a lawyer. That is an admirable wish, but I really gotta wonder...
do you really expect the average American to accept that much personal
responsibility for his or her behavior?
This isn't intended as a flame to you...just a semi-sarcastic statement
to perhaps start a discussion.
Jerry
Kevin Metcalfe
: Jeff,
Remember: It's not my fault that I can't take responsiblity for my
actions...
:) If you don't get it, re-read it a couple of times.
--
Kevin Metcalfe
metc...@wheel.dcn.davis.ca.us
Davis, CA
Jeff B
easier to use a QR properly than to use this computer!
jeffb
--
jeff b Bikesport
T Houser
says...
>
>Jerry Penny (7353...@CompuServe.COM) wrote:
<SNIP SNIP SNIPETY SNIP>
>: This isn't intended as a flame to you...just a semi-sarcastic statement
>: to perhaps start a discussion.
Can you say, BAIT? Don't get hooked. This thread has been worn out,
frayed, and broken.