J
Judge falls from bicycle
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
A
amakyonin
Guest
It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
they should have a surgeon general's warning plastered all over stating
"WARNING: failure to use common sense may result in disfigurement". Our
country is in a sad state when even the judiciary isn't free of
litigious bastards. Nobody is willing to accept responsibility for
their own mistakes.
Here's the URL for info on the 2001 Sedona LX:
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?year=2001&model=10339
Looks like two brakes to me. Maybe he's an amputee.
--
Waiting to see Clarence Thomas endo on his one-brake fixie
designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
they should have a surgeon general's warning plastered all over stating
"WARNING: failure to use common sense may result in disfigurement". Our
country is in a sad state when even the judiciary isn't free of
litigious bastards. Nobody is willing to accept responsibility for
their own mistakes.
Here's the URL for info on the 2001 Sedona LX:
http://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/030.000.000/030.000.000.asp?year=2001&model=10339
Looks like two brakes to me. Maybe he's an amputee.
--
Waiting to see Clarence Thomas endo on his one-brake fixie
J
Jay Beattie
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have not been able to find more on this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/csgfq
Not a terribly smart judge. He did not even bother joining the
LBS to avoid removal to federal court. He also has to be asking
for more than $75K to get it removed. -- Jay Beattie.
news:[email protected]...
> I have not been able to find more on this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/csgfq
Not a terribly smart judge. He did not even bother joining the
LBS to avoid removal to federal court. He also has to be asking
for more than $75K to get it removed. -- Jay Beattie.
F
Fritz M
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> I have not been able to find more on this:
Here's a press release from over two years ago on the accident.
http://www.state.il.us/court/PressRel/2003/062503.pdf
He broke his hip, shoulder and elbow. "He is uncertain what caused the
accident, perhaps a bump or pothole or loose stones on the roadway."
Because of the Boub decision, Kilbride can't sue the municipality for
the lousy condition of the road.
RFM
http://www.cyclelicio.us/
> I have not been able to find more on this:
Here's a press release from over two years ago on the accident.
http://www.state.il.us/court/PressRel/2003/062503.pdf
He broke his hip, shoulder and elbow. "He is uncertain what caused the
accident, perhaps a bump or pothole or loose stones on the roadway."
Because of the Boub decision, Kilbride can't sue the municipality for
the lousy condition of the road.
RFM
http://www.cyclelicio.us/
J
Jasper Janssen
Guest
On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the tyre
and fork, locking the front wheel?
Jasper
>It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the tyre
and fork, locking the front wheel?
Jasper
P
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Guest
"Jasper Janssen" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>>designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
>
> How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the tyre
> and fork, locking the front wheel?
That might not be the case. If you look at the component spec, it mentions
"Alloy, Direct pull w/ power control." That power control is likely the
"ABS" **** that some manufacturers (namely, GT) put on comfort bikes because
recreational cyclists don't know how to use the front brake in a smooth
fashion. It's basically a spring in-line with the v-brake cable noodle to
limit the maximum tension between the brake arms, and the brake lever goes
all the way to the handlebar without an appreciable increase in front brake
power.
What may have happened is that the ABS (not the plastic, the anti-lock
thing) unit failed, causing an inability to provide any braking power. If
it was the rear that failed, and the judge was taught from childhood not to
use the front brake because it'll pitch you over the bars instantly, then of
course he would lose control and crash.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
news:[email protected]...
> On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>>designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
>
> How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the tyre
> and fork, locking the front wheel?
That might not be the case. If you look at the component spec, it mentions
"Alloy, Direct pull w/ power control." That power control is likely the
"ABS" **** that some manufacturers (namely, GT) put on comfort bikes because
recreational cyclists don't know how to use the front brake in a smooth
fashion. It's basically a spring in-line with the v-brake cable noodle to
limit the maximum tension between the brake arms, and the brake lever goes
all the way to the handlebar without an appreciable increase in front brake
power.
What may have happened is that the ABS (not the plastic, the anti-lock
thing) unit failed, causing an inability to provide any braking power. If
it was the rear that failed, and the judge was taught from childhood not to
use the front brake because it'll pitch you over the bars instantly, then of
course he would lose control and crash.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
T
Ted Bennett
Guest
In article <[email protected]>,
"amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
> designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.
Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).
--
Ted Bennett
"amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
> designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.
Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).
--
Ted Bennett
J
Jasper Janssen writes:
>> It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>> designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
> How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the
> tyre and fork, locking the front wheel?
I haven't found a description of the event that even slightly states
what was claimed to have failed other than that the rider had various
serious injuries... and will fully recover. I was only made aware of
the item in:
http://tinyurl.com/csgfq
The other reference offered didn't shed any light on the nature of the
claimed failure, wheels, brakes, or other mechanical cause. It also
appears that the criterion of manufacturers fault is related to the
severity of injury rather than any specific fault in design. The
cases in which I testified (primarily wheels), had no merit and only
two of them went to trial and fell apart in the process, something
plaintiff's lawyers could have known from "discovery" testimony.
I can guess that this case is similar, but then I have only been
involved in wheel related cases in which male riders concocted a
scenario to explain to their friends how they could have been so dumb
as to fall off their bicycles. The stories fit folklore but miss on
technical substance.
Jobst Brandt
>> It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>> designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
> How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the
> tyre and fork, locking the front wheel?
I haven't found a description of the event that even slightly states
what was claimed to have failed other than that the rider had various
serious injuries... and will fully recover. I was only made aware of
the item in:
http://tinyurl.com/csgfq
The other reference offered didn't shed any light on the nature of the
claimed failure, wheels, brakes, or other mechanical cause. It also
appears that the criterion of manufacturers fault is related to the
severity of injury rather than any specific fault in design. The
cases in which I testified (primarily wheels), had no merit and only
two of them went to trial and fell apart in the process, something
plaintiff's lawyers could have known from "discovery" testimony.
I can guess that this case is similar, but then I have only been
involved in wheel related cases in which male riders concocted a
scenario to explain to their friends how they could have been so dumb
as to fall off their bicycles. The stories fit folklore but miss on
technical substance.
Jobst Brandt
P
Phil, Squid-in-Training
Guest
"Ted Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>> designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.
>
> Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
> than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
> say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).
Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to have a brake
that skids the rear wheel. No front brake requirement.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>> designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.
>
> Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
> than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
> say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).
Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to have a brake
that skids the rear wheel. No front brake requirement.
--
Phil, Squid-in-Training
B
I think you should be less judgmental about the Judge, his riding
abilities and his propensity to file litigation, since no one seems to
know how the accident really happened. It's all well and good to love
bicycles, but any impartial observer has to admit that bicycle
manufacturers sometimes do screw up, just as bicycle riders sometimes
do. We will just have to wait for the trial, apparently, to find out
what really happened. In the meantime, it is extremely fatuous to
criticize the Judge, since such criticism is not based on fact.
abilities and his propensity to file litigation, since no one seems to
know how the accident really happened. It's all well and good to love
bicycles, but any impartial observer has to admit that bicycle
manufacturers sometimes do screw up, just as bicycle riders sometimes
do. We will just have to wait for the trial, apparently, to find out
what really happened. In the meantime, it is extremely fatuous to
criticize the Judge, since such criticism is not based on fact.
J
Jasper Janssen
Guest
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:06:14 -0400, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ted Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>>> designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.
>>
>> Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
>> than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
>> say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).
For redundancy reasons, it's certainly necessary to have two forms of
slowing down in case one breaks. Barring that, however, you only need a
front brake.
>Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to have a brake
>that skids the rear wheel. No front brake requirement.
Having redundant brakes mentioned in law would preclude coaster brake
bikes from being ridden.
Jasper
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Ted Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> "amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>>> designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.
>>
>> Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
>> than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
>> say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).
For redundancy reasons, it's certainly necessary to have two forms of
slowing down in case one breaks. Barring that, however, you only need a
front brake.
>Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to have a brake
>that skids the rear wheel. No front brake requirement.
Having redundant brakes mentioned in law would preclude coaster brake
bikes from being ridden.
Jasper
M
Mark Janeba
Guest
Jasper Janssen wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:06:14 -0400, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Ted Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>"amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>>>>designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.
>>>
>>>Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
>>>than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
>>>say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).
>
>
> For redundancy reasons, it's certainly necessary to have two forms of
> slowing down in case one breaks. Barring that, however, you only need a
> front brake.
>
>
>>Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to have a brake
>>that skids the rear wheel. No front brake requirement.
>
>
> Having redundant brakes mentioned in law would preclude coaster brake
> bikes from being ridden.
Interesting that you mention that - there was a time (~25-30 years ago
IIRC) that children's bikes in the US, formerly equipped with only a
coaster brake, started showing up in stores with the coaster AND a front
caliper. I doubted then and now that this change was in response to
customer demand, and suspect it was in response to either "safety"
regulations of the US CPSC or some litigation. Does anybody else
remember this and know what the actual cause was?
Mark
> On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:06:14 -0400, "Phil, Squid-in-Training"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>"Ted Bennett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>"amakyonin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
>>>>designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.
>>>
>>>Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
>>>than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
>>>say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).
>
>
> For redundancy reasons, it's certainly necessary to have two forms of
> slowing down in case one breaks. Barring that, however, you only need a
> front brake.
>
>
>>Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to have a brake
>>that skids the rear wheel. No front brake requirement.
>
>
> Having redundant brakes mentioned in law would preclude coaster brake
> bikes from being ridden.
Interesting that you mention that - there was a time (~25-30 years ago
IIRC) that children's bikes in the US, formerly equipped with only a
coaster brake, started showing up in stores with the coaster AND a front
caliper. I doubted then and now that this change was in response to
customer demand, and suspect it was in response to either "safety"
regulations of the US CPSC or some litigation. Does anybody else
remember this and know what the actual cause was?
Mark
4
41
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
>We will just have to wait for the trial, apparently, to find out
> what really happened. In the meantime, it is extremely fatuous to
> criticize the Judge, since such criticism is not based on fact.
Almost true but not quite. Since the first fact that we are interested
in is "why did the Justice sue?"- which is more than "why did the
Justice fall?"- some relevant facts are "what has the Justice claimed
so far?". In the first report, at the time of the incident, a press
release from his office, June 25 2003, he says "He is uncertain what
caused the accident, perhaps a bump or pothole or loose stones on the
roadway." In the second report, from the time of his lawsuit, October
21 2005, we learn that "The suit claims his bicycle contained a
manufacturing and design defect which caused the brake coupling
[mounting bolt? cable attachment?] to fail. Because of the defect the
bicycle broke [the frame? the fork?] and became uncontrollable and
inoperable".
>From the Giant catalogue we learn that his bicycle, a Sedona LX, is
common enough, with a suspension fork and V-brakes:
http://tinyurl.com/7a3sh
If the second report is accurate, then neither the Justice nor his
lawyers know even the most elementary bicycle terminology, and so it
would be a fair bet they don't know much else of what they are talking
about.
O
>We will just have to wait for the trial, apparently, to find out
> what really happened. In the meantime, it is extremely fatuous to
> criticize the Judge, since such criticism is not based on fact.
Almost true but not quite. Since the first fact that we are interested
in is "why did the Justice sue?"- which is more than "why did the
Justice fall?"- some relevant facts are "what has the Justice claimed
so far?". In the first report, at the time of the incident, a press
release from his office, June 25 2003, he says "He is uncertain what
caused the accident, perhaps a bump or pothole or loose stones on the
roadway." In the second report, from the time of his lawsuit, October
21 2005, we learn that "The suit claims his bicycle contained a
manufacturing and design defect which caused the brake coupling
[mounting bolt? cable attachment?] to fail. Because of the defect the
bicycle broke [the frame? the fork?] and became uncontrollable and
inoperable".
>From the Giant catalogue we learn that his bicycle, a Sedona LX, is
common enough, with a suspension fork and V-brakes:
http://tinyurl.com/7a3sh
If the second report is accurate, then neither the Justice nor his
lawyers know even the most elementary bicycle terminology, and so it
would be a fair bet they don't know much else of what they are talking
about.
O
J
Jasper Janssen
Guest
On Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:35:54 -0700, Mark Janeba
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> Having redundant brakes mentioned in law would preclude coaster brake
>> bikes from being ridden.
>
>Interesting that you mention that - there was a time (~25-30 years ago
>IIRC) that children's bikes in the US, formerly equipped with only a
>coaster brake, started showing up in stores with the coaster AND a front
>caliper. I doubted then and now that this change was in response to
>customer demand, and suspect it was in response to either "safety"
>regulations of the US CPSC or some litigation. Does anybody else
>remember this and know what the actual cause was?
Well, it's come up before in this group and it was stated that in
$SOME-STATE-OR-OTHER redundant brake systems were in fact mandatory. Given
that this is apparently state law rather than federal or EU-wide, massove
variation occurs.
Jasper
<[email protected]> wrote:
>Jasper Janssen wrote:
>> Having redundant brakes mentioned in law would preclude coaster brake
>> bikes from being ridden.
>
>Interesting that you mention that - there was a time (~25-30 years ago
>IIRC) that children's bikes in the US, formerly equipped with only a
>coaster brake, started showing up in stores with the coaster AND a front
>caliper. I doubted then and now that this change was in response to
>customer demand, and suspect it was in response to either "safety"
>regulations of the US CPSC or some litigation. Does anybody else
>remember this and know what the actual cause was?
Well, it's come up before in this group and it was stated that in
$SOME-STATE-OR-OTHER redundant brake systems were in fact mandatory. Given
that this is apparently state law rather than federal or EU-wide, massove
variation occurs.
Jasper
D
D
when writing the complaint, the plaintiff need not spill his guts but
as jack said-just the facts
and facts called for are facts to give the defendants notice of what
the suit is about so the defendants can begin to defend
so its enough to write i fell of my bike and you're responsible
being aware that if they are not proven responsible then the plaintiff
is responsible for causing the defendants damages via the lawsuit.
butbubtut- resposibility is proven by-
awarness of the flaw causing the accident
the flaws proximity to the damages
awarness of ...???
butbutbut proof is 51/49 in civil action not 100/1 as assumed in
criminal action 51/49-beware who you screw around!
so what yawl need are EXPERT WITNESSES!! testifying that yes they had
to be aware. everyone knew it so they knew it.
ps- muni's are generally not guilty as damages would be passed on to
everyone in the muni and they are not guilty.
as jack said-just the facts
and facts called for are facts to give the defendants notice of what
the suit is about so the defendants can begin to defend
so its enough to write i fell of my bike and you're responsible
being aware that if they are not proven responsible then the plaintiff
is responsible for causing the defendants damages via the lawsuit.
butbubtut- resposibility is proven by-
awarness of the flaw causing the accident
the flaws proximity to the damages
awarness of ...???
butbutbut proof is 51/49 in civil action not 100/1 as assumed in
criminal action 51/49-beware who you screw around!
so what yawl need are EXPERT WITNESSES!! testifying that yes they had
to be aware. everyone knew it so they knew it.
ps- muni's are generally not guilty as damages would be passed on to
everyone in the muni and they are not guilty.
Jay Beattie said:
An Illinois LBS would be the converse of World Wide Volkswagon. The manufacturers' right to diversity jurisdiction is not diminished merely because the plaintiff joins a secondary or trivial codefendant in the case. If the LBS is out of state (a distinct possibility from accross the river given the Quad Cities' story and surgery location) the LBS would have had the right to diversity jurisdiction in Federal Court. Else, plaintiffs would join trivial defendants to preclude removal to Federal Court.
L
Leo Lichtman
Guest
<[email protected]> wrote: (clip) its enough to write i fell of my bike and
you're responsible being aware that if they are not proven responsible then
the plaintiff is responsible for causing the defendants damages via the
lawsuit.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not in most cases. If that were true, it would have a horrible chilling
effect on anyone thinking of bring a lawsuit. I believe it would be true in
cases where the suit is found to be frivolous or malicious.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(clip) not 100/1 as assumed in criminal action (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Should read 100/0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(clip) what yawl need are EXPERT WITNESSES!! testifying that yes they had to
be aware. everyone knew it so they knew it.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are other ways to prove this. One of the best is to subpoena the
defendant's records and find internal memos which prove their awareness that
the problem existed, and they chose to ignore it. or better yet, that they
conspired to conceal it.
you're responsible being aware that if they are not proven responsible then
the plaintiff is responsible for causing the defendants damages via the
lawsuit.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Not in most cases. If that were true, it would have a horrible chilling
effect on anyone thinking of bring a lawsuit. I believe it would be true in
cases where the suit is found to be frivolous or malicious.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(clip) not 100/1 as assumed in criminal action (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Should read 100/0
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
(clip) what yawl need are EXPERT WITNESSES!! testifying that yes they had to
be aware. everyone knew it so they knew it.(clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are other ways to prove this. One of the best is to subpoena the
defendant's records and find internal memos which prove their awareness that
the problem existed, and they chose to ignore it. or better yet, that they
conspired to conceal it.
B
Bill Sornson
Guest
J
Mark Janeba writes:
>>> Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to
>>> have a brake that skids the rear wheel. No front brake
>>> requirement.
>> Having redundant brakes mentioned in law would preclude coaster
>> brake bikes from being ridden.
> Interesting that you mention that - there was a time (~25-30 years
> ago IIRC) that children's bikes in the US, formerly equipped with
> only a coaster brake, started showing up in stores with the coaster
> AND a front caliper. I doubted then and now that this change was in
> response to customer demand, and suspect it was in response to
> either "safety" regulations of the US CPSC or some litigation. Does
> anybody else remember this and know what the actual cause was?
For such riders, the front brake probably caused more injuries than
just a coaster brake on the rear wheel, judging from the numenr of
"over the bars" threads we see here from adults. I had the experience
of my six-year old doing so. Unhurt he got a lot smarter after that.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html
Jobst Brandt
>>> Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to
>>> have a brake that skids the rear wheel. No front brake
>>> requirement.
>> Having redundant brakes mentioned in law would preclude coaster
>> brake bikes from being ridden.
> Interesting that you mention that - there was a time (~25-30 years
> ago IIRC) that children's bikes in the US, formerly equipped with
> only a coaster brake, started showing up in stores with the coaster
> AND a front caliper. I doubted then and now that this change was in
> response to customer demand, and suspect it was in response to
> either "safety" regulations of the US CPSC or some litigation. Does
> anybody else remember this and know what the actual cause was?
For such riders, the front brake probably caused more injuries than
just a coaster brake on the rear wheel, judging from the numenr of
"over the bars" threads we see here from adults. I had the experience
of my six-year old doing so. Unhurt he got a lot smarter after that.
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/brandt/over-the-bars.html
Jobst Brandt
