Cycling Equipment · Public discussion

Lawyer Lips Lawsuit

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 61 posts · 2,170 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Cycling Equipment
Published
10 December 2005
Last activity
16 December 2005
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
61
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
2,170
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 61
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. MARIN COUNTY
    Bikes had defective design, expert says
    Front-wheel lever blamed in series of bicycle accidents

    Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Saturday, December 10, 2005

    A metals expert testified in court Friday that a San Rafael company
    distributed children's bicycles with an inherently dangerous design
    flaw, resulting since 1999 in more than 100 accidents nationwide in
    which front wheels flew off the bikes and riders were catapulted
    headfirst over the handlebars.

    Robert Neil Anderson, professor emeritus of materials engineering at
    San Jose State University, said he examined several bicycles imported
    by Dynacraft BSC Inc. of San Rafael and sold by Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
    and concluded that they had a defective quick-release lever on the
    front wheel.

    Nine boys from California and other states are suing Wal-Mart,
    Dynacraft and Carl Warren & Co., which investigated claims for the San
    Rafael importer. Wal-Mart and the other defendants have denied
    wrongdoing.

    Friday's testimony before a Marin County Superior Court jury came in
    the first week of a trial in which the plaintiffs accuse the nation's
    largest retailer and the bike importer of knowing about the problems
    with the front wheels but continuing to sell the bikes and failing to
    report injuries to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    In other testimony Friday, a former claims adjuster testified in a
    video deposition that her firm ignored her pleas that certain Wal-Mart
    bicycles should be recalled because of dozens of injuries linked to the
    faulty quick-release levers.

    Three of the boys claim to have suffered brain damage from bicycle
    accidents due to failed quick-release levers. The remaining six have
    various injuries, including facial scarring, broken teeth and permanent
    disfigurement.

    Anderson testified that the bicycles' quick-release system, which is
    designed to hold the front-wheel axle to the frame and allow the wheel
    to be easily removed for repairs or transport, was "inappropriate" for
    children and called the device "defective" in its design.

    "It's dangerous," he said. "The way they are manufactured ... At any
    time, the wheel can come off."

    He criticized the manufacturer's choice of materials for the
    quick-release lever, testifying that a soft bushing was insufficient to
    hold the lever in a locked position.

    "It's like using marshmallows to try to hold it in place. There's
    nothing to clamp down on," Anderson said. "It's going to slip. It
    doesn't have the ability to clamp."

    Anderson also said the bicycle was designed to hold a safety device,
    called a retainer clip -- with the inclusion of tiny holes in the forks
    on the steering column to house this clip. But the bicycles appear to
    have been sold without the clip, he added.

    Plaintiffs' lead counsel Mark Webb asked Anderson about a series of
    accidents from across the country involving Wal-Mart bikes with
    allegedly faulty quick-release levers, including accidents that
    occurred this year. The average age of those injured was about 10,
    Anderson said.

    The resulting injuries included broken arms and collarbones, cracked
    elbows, torn ligaments, separated shoulders, a ruptured spleen, eye
    damage, hematoma, seizures and road rash.

    Robert Phillips, a lawyer for Wal-Mart, objected that the details of
    children's bike accidents - other than those of the nine plaintiffs --
    were inflammatory and should not be heard by the jury.

    "The only thing these claims show is that the tire came off," Phillips
    told the judge. "There are other reasons a wheel can come off besides a
    quick-release problem."

    Judge Michael B. Dufficy denied the motion.

    The bicycles, mostly mountain bikes, were sold for about $150 apiece at
    Wal-Mart under the Next brand name, with specific models such as Next
    Shock Zone and Next Ultra Shock. Dynacraft said it imported more than
    460,000 of the bikes, which are no longer being sold but are still in
    use. The bikes' quick-release device has not been the subject of any
    government or company recalls.

    The bikes were made in China, with final assembly in the United States.
    Wal-Mart referred accident claims to Dynacraft, which referred them to
    Carl Warren & Co.

    Laurie Heide, a former claims adjuster for Carl Warren & Co.'s office
    in Kirkland, Wash., testified in a video deposition that she processed
    25 to 40 accident claims in 2001 and 2002 involving faulty
    quick-release levers, and that other adjusters in her office logged
    similar numbers of claims.

    Heide also testified that she spoke repeatedly to a supervisor about
    the quick-release lever, but that he ignored her suggestion that the
    bikes should be recalled.

    The trial resumes next week, and Anderson will be cross-examined by the
    defense.

  2. Quoted message said:

    MARIN COUNTY
    Bikes had defective design, expert says
    Front-wheel lever blamed in series of bicycle accidents

    Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Saturday, December 10, 2005

    A metals expert testified in court Friday that a San Rafael company
    distributed children's bicycles with an inherently dangerous design
    flaw, resulting since 1999 in more than 100 accidents nationwide in
    which front wheels flew off the bikes and riders were catapulted
    headfirst over the handlebars.

    Robert Neil Anderson, professor emeritus of materials engineering at
    San Jose State University, said he examined several bicycles imported
    by Dynacraft BSC Inc. of San Rafael and sold by Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
    and concluded that they had a defective quick-release lever on the
    front wheel.

    Nine boys from California and other states are suing Wal-Mart,
    Dynacraft and Carl Warren & Co., which investigated claims for the San
    Rafael importer. Wal-Mart and the other defendants have denied
    wrongdoing.

    Friday's testimony before a Marin County Superior Court jury came in
    the first week of a trial in which the plaintiffs accuse the nation's
    largest retailer and the bike importer of knowing about the problems
    with the front wheels but continuing to sell the bikes and failing to
    report injuries to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    In other testimony Friday, a former claims adjuster testified in a
    video deposition that her firm ignored her pleas that certain Wal-Mart
    bicycles should be recalled because of dozens of injuries linked to the
    faulty quick-release levers.

    Three of the boys claim to have suffered brain damage from bicycle
    accidents due to failed quick-release levers. The remaining six have
    various injuries, including facial scarring, broken teeth and permanent
    disfigurement.

    Anderson testified that the bicycles' quick-release system, which is
    designed to hold the front-wheel axle to the frame and allow the wheel
    to be easily removed for repairs or transport, was "inappropriate" for
    children and called the device "defective" in its design.

    "It's dangerous," he said. "The way they are manufactured ... At any
    time, the wheel can come off."

    He criticized the manufacturer's choice of materials for the
    quick-release lever, testifying that a soft bushing was insufficient to
    hold the lever in a locked position.

    "It's like using marshmallows to try to hold it in place. There's
    nothing to clamp down on," Anderson said. "It's going to slip. It
    doesn't have the ability to clamp."

    Anderson also said the bicycle was designed to hold a safety device,
    called a retainer clip -- with the inclusion of tiny holes in the forks
    on the steering column to house this clip. But the bicycles appear to
    have been sold without the clip, he added.

    Plaintiffs' lead counsel Mark Webb asked Anderson about a series of
    accidents from across the country involving Wal-Mart bikes with
    allegedly faulty quick-release levers, including accidents that
    occurred this year. The average age of those injured was about 10,
    Anderson said.

    The resulting injuries included broken arms and collarbones, cracked
    elbows, torn ligaments, separated shoulders, a ruptured spleen, eye
    damage, hematoma, seizures and road rash.

    Robert Phillips, a lawyer for Wal-Mart, objected that the details of
    children's bike accidents - other than those of the nine plaintiffs --
    were inflammatory and should not be heard by the jury.

    "The only thing these claims show is that the tire came off," Phillips
    told the judge. "There are other reasons a wheel can come off besides a
    quick-release problem."

    Judge Michael B. Dufficy denied the motion.

    The bicycles, mostly mountain bikes, were sold for about $150 apiece at
    Wal-Mart under the Next brand name, with specific models such as Next
    Shock Zone and Next Ultra Shock. Dynacraft said it imported more than
    460,000 of the bikes, which are no longer being sold but are still in
    use. The bikes' quick-release device has not been the subject of any
    government or company recalls.

    The bikes were made in China, with final assembly in the United States.
    Wal-Mart referred accident claims to Dynacraft, which referred them to
    Carl Warren & Co.

    Laurie Heide, a former claims adjuster for Carl Warren & Co.'s office
    in Kirkland, Wash., testified in a video deposition that she processed
    25 to 40 accident claims in 2001 and 2002 involving faulty
    quick-release levers, and that other adjusters in her office logged
    similar numbers of claims.

    Heide also testified that she spoke repeatedly to a supervisor about
    the quick-release lever, but that he ignored her suggestion that the
    bikes should be recalled.

    The trial resumes next week, and Anderson will be cross-examined by the
    defense.

    and how many other lawsuits does walmart or any other big retailer have
    pending at any time? /any/ big corporation come to that. it's called
    "greenmail". the plaintiff knows it's frivolous. the defendant knows
    it's frivolous. but /both/ know that it's cheaper for the defendant to
    pay rather than to win and be correct. and that's all this lawsuit is
    setting up to do.

    regarding this specific article;

    1. it /doesn't/ mention lawyer lips.

    2. it /does/ mention "defective" quick releases due to a "soft bushing".

    therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
    deliberate use of a misleading title.

  3. jim beam said:
    Quoted message said:

    MARIN COUNTY
    Bikes had defective design, expert says
    Front-wheel lever blamed in series of bicycle accidents

    Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Saturday, December 10, 2005

    A metals expert testified in court Friday that a San Rafael company
    distributed children's bicycles with an inherently dangerous design
    flaw, resulting since 1999 in more than 100 accidents nationwide in
    which front wheels flew off the bikes and riders were catapulted
    headfirst over the handlebars.

    Robert Neil Anderson, professor emeritus of materials engineering at
    San Jose State University, said he examined several bicycles imported
    by Dynacraft BSC Inc. of San Rafael and sold by Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
    and concluded that they had a defective quick-release lever on the
    front wheel.

    Nine boys from California and other states are suing Wal-Mart,
    Dynacraft and Carl Warren & Co., which investigated claims for the San
    Rafael importer. Wal-Mart and the other defendants have denied
    wrongdoing.

    Friday's testimony before a Marin County Superior Court jury came in
    the first week of a trial in which the plaintiffs accuse the nation's
    largest retailer and the bike importer of knowing about the problems
    with the front wheels but continuing to sell the bikes and failing to
    report injuries to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    In other testimony Friday, a former claims adjuster testified in a
    video deposition that her firm ignored her pleas that certain Wal-Mart
    bicycles should be recalled because of dozens of injuries linked to the
    faulty quick-release levers.

    Three of the boys claim to have suffered brain damage from bicycle
    accidents due to failed quick-release levers. The remaining six have
    various injuries, including facial scarring, broken teeth and permanent
    disfigurement.

    Anderson testified that the bicycles' quick-release system, which is
    designed to hold the front-wheel axle to the frame and allow the wheel
    to be easily removed for repairs or transport, was "inappropriate" for
    children and called the device "defective" in its design.

    "It's dangerous," he said. "The way they are manufactured ... At any
    time, the wheel can come off."

    He criticized the manufacturer's choice of materials for the
    quick-release lever, testifying that a soft bushing was insufficient to
    hold the lever in a locked position.

    "It's like using marshmallows to try to hold it in place. There's
    nothing to clamp down on," Anderson said. "It's going to slip. It
    doesn't have the ability to clamp."

    Anderson also said the bicycle was designed to hold a safety device,
    called a retainer clip -- with the inclusion of tiny holes in the forks
    on the steering column to house this clip. But the bicycles appear to
    have been sold without the clip, he added.

    Plaintiffs' lead counsel Mark Webb asked Anderson about a series of
    accidents from across the country involving Wal-Mart bikes with
    allegedly faulty quick-release levers, including accidents that
    occurred this year. The average age of those injured was about 10,
    Anderson said.

    The resulting injuries included broken arms and collarbones, cracked
    elbows, torn ligaments, separated shoulders, a ruptured spleen, eye
    damage, hematoma, seizures and road rash.

    Robert Phillips, a lawyer for Wal-Mart, objected that the details of
    children's bike accidents - other than those of the nine plaintiffs --
    were inflammatory and should not be heard by the jury.

    "The only thing these claims show is that the tire came off," Phillips
    told the judge. "There are other reasons a wheel can come off besides a
    quick-release problem."

    Judge Michael B. Dufficy denied the motion.

    The bicycles, mostly mountain bikes, were sold for about $150 apiece at
    Wal-Mart under the Next brand name, with specific models such as Next
    Shock Zone and Next Ultra Shock. Dynacraft said it imported more than
    460,000 of the bikes, which are no longer being sold but are still in
    use. The bikes' quick-release device has not been the subject of any
    government or company recalls.

    The bikes were made in China, with final assembly in the United States.
    Wal-Mart referred accident claims to Dynacraft, which referred them to
    Carl Warren & Co.

    Laurie Heide, a former claims adjuster for Carl Warren & Co.'s office
    in Kirkland, Wash., testified in a video deposition that she processed
    25 to 40 accident claims in 2001 and 2002 involving faulty
    quick-release levers, and that other adjusters in her office logged
    similar numbers of claims.

    Heide also testified that she spoke repeatedly to a supervisor about
    the quick-release lever, but that he ignored her suggestion that the
    bikes should be recalled.

    The trial resumes next week, and Anderson will be cross-examined by the
    defense.

    and how many other lawsuits does walmart or any other big retailer have
    pending at any time? /any/ big corporation come to that. it's called
    "greenmail". the plaintiff knows it's frivolous. the defendant knows
    it's frivolous. but /both/ know that it's cheaper for the defendant to
    pay rather than to win and be correct. and that's all this lawsuit is
    setting up to do.

    regarding this specific article;

    1. it /doesn't/ mention lawyer lips.

    2. it /does/ mention "defective" quick releases due to a "soft bushing".

    therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
    deliberate use of a misleading title.

    We need pictures of this quick release. Where is this bushing that the
    article alludes to?

  4. <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    MARIN COUNTY
    Bikes had defective design, expert says
    Front-wheel lever blamed in series of bicycle accidents

    Jim Doyle, Chronicle Staff Writer
    Saturday, December 10, 2005

    A metals expert testified in court Friday that a San Rafael company
    distributed children's bicycles with an inherently dangerous design
    flaw, resulting since 1999 in more than 100 accidents nationwide in
    which front wheels flew off the bikes and riders were catapulted
    headfirst over the handlebars.

    Robert Neil Anderson, professor emeritus of materials engineering at
    San Jose State University, said he examined several bicycles imported
    by Dynacraft BSC Inc. of San Rafael and sold by Wal-Mart Stores Inc.,
    and concluded that they had a defective quick-release lever on the
    front wheel.

    Nine boys from California and other states are suing Wal-Mart,
    Dynacraft and Carl Warren & Co., which investigated claims for the San
    Rafael importer. Wal-Mart and the other defendants have denied
    wrongdoing.

    Friday's testimony before a Marin County Superior Court jury came in
    the first week of a trial in which the plaintiffs accuse the nation's
    largest retailer and the bike importer of knowing about the problems
    with the front wheels but continuing to sell the bikes and failing to
    report injuries to the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

    In other testimony Friday, a former claims adjuster testified in a
    video deposition that her firm ignored her pleas that certain Wal-Mart
    bicycles should be recalled because of dozens of injuries linked to the
    faulty quick-release levers.

    Three of the boys claim to have suffered brain damage from bicycle
    accidents due to failed quick-release levers. The remaining six have
    various injuries, including facial scarring, broken teeth and permanent
    disfigurement.

    Anderson testified that the bicycles' quick-release system, which is
    designed to hold the front-wheel axle to the frame and allow the wheel
    to be easily removed for repairs or transport, was "inappropriate" for
    children and called the device "defective" in its design.

    "It's dangerous," he said. "The way they are manufactured ... At any
    time, the wheel can come off."

    He criticized the manufacturer's choice of materials for the
    quick-release lever, testifying that a soft bushing was insufficient to
    hold the lever in a locked position.

    "It's like using marshmallows to try to hold it in place. There's
    nothing to clamp down on," Anderson said. "It's going to slip. It
    doesn't have the ability to clamp."

    Anderson also said the bicycle was designed to hold a safety device,
    called a retainer clip -- with the inclusion of tiny holes in the forks
    on the steering column to house this clip. But the bicycles appear to
    have been sold without the clip, he added.

    Plaintiffs' lead counsel Mark Webb asked Anderson about a series of
    accidents from across the country involving Wal-Mart bikes with
    allegedly faulty quick-release levers, including accidents that
    occurred this year. The average age of those injured was about 10,
    Anderson said.

    The resulting injuries included broken arms and collarbones, cracked
    elbows, torn ligaments, separated shoulders, a ruptured spleen, eye
    damage, hematoma, seizures and road rash.

    Robert Phillips, a lawyer for Wal-Mart, objected that the details of
    children's bike accidents - other than those of the nine plaintiffs --
    were inflammatory and should not be heard by the jury.

    "The only thing these claims show is that the tire came off," Phillips
    told the judge. "There are other reasons a wheel can come off besides a
    quick-release problem."

    Judge Michael B. Dufficy denied the motion.

    The bicycles, mostly mountain bikes, were sold for about $150 apiece at
    Wal-Mart under the Next brand name, with specific models such as Next
    Shock Zone and Next Ultra Shock. Dynacraft said it imported more than
    460,000 of the bikes, which are no longer being sold but are still in
    use. The bikes' quick-release device has not been the subject of any
    government or company recalls.

    The bikes were made in China, with final assembly in the United States.
    Wal-Mart referred accident claims to Dynacraft, which referred them to
    Carl Warren & Co.

    Laurie Heide, a former claims adjuster for Carl Warren & Co.'s office
    in Kirkland, Wash., testified in a video deposition that she processed
    25 to 40 accident claims in 2001 and 2002 involving faulty
    quick-release levers, and that other adjusters in her office logged
    similar numbers of claims.

    Heide also testified that she spoke repeatedly to a supervisor about
    the quick-release lever, but that he ignored her suggestion that the
    bikes should be recalled.

    The trial resumes next week, and Anderson will be cross-examined by the
    defense.

    I know Bob Anderson and have worked with him on many occasions over many
    years. He is an objective investigator and certainly knows materials.

    Your reference to "Lawyer Lips" in the heading indicates that you did not
    read the article, did not understand the article or are trying to start a
    flame war.

    I have no doubt that is possible for a cheap manufacturer to turn out a
    dangerous quick release. If it releases unexpectedly while riding, it is
    probably dangerous.

  5. Dan said:

    I have no doubt that is possible for a cheap manufacturer to turn
    out a dangerous quick release. If it releases unexpectedly while
    riding, it is probably dangerous.

    There's no "probably" about it. Without seeing the quick release and
    fork in question, however, no one here is going to be in a position to
    comment intelligently on the plaintiff's claims.

    The author of the newspaper article is using a nice bit of hysterical
    rhetoric in his writing- e.g., that the wheels "flew" off, etc.

    I also note in a few seconds with Google, something the article's
    author didn't bother to do, that there is a recall on these bicycles
    dated 2001:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml01/01132.html

    And a few more hysterical things:

    http://www.shokbikes.org/momstories.htm

    I'm always amazed that people are surprised when they don't know how
    to use something, don't exert any effort to learn, and then get hurt
    when they use the thing. Now, I'm not saying that Wal*Mart's cheapo
    bikes aren't defective because I don't know and I wouldn't be
    surprised if they are. Maybe it's the toy mentality, confusing a bike
    with a toy instead of realizing that it is in fact a vehicle.

    I haven't looked much through this Web site, but it makes at least one
    good point- bikes are not toys:

    http://www.bikesrnottoys.com/

  6. Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    MARIN COUNTY
    Bikes had defective design, expert says
    Front-wheel lever blamed in series of bicycle accidents


    -snip-

    Quoted message said:
    jim beam said:

    and how many other lawsuits does walmart or any other big retailer have
    pending at any time? /any/ big corporation come to that. it's called
    "greenmail". the plaintiff knows it's frivolous. the defendant knows
    it's frivolous. but /both/ know that it's cheaper for the defendant to
    pay rather than to win and be correct. and that's all this lawsuit is
    setting up to do.
    regarding this specific article;
    1. it /doesn't/ mention lawyer lips.
    2. it /does/ mention "defective" quick releases due to a "soft bushing".
    therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
    deliberate use of a misleading title.

    damyth said:

    We need pictures of this quick release. Where is this bushing that the
    article alludes to?

    You are probably familiar without a picture.

    Traditional skewers were all steel with a cam inside a bell
    housing and lubricated at the factory. Those are now often
    shipped dry, which makes them quite difficult to lock properly.

    A new variant is made with a simple aluminum cam bearing on
    a scalloped nylon pad. Those are arguably worse and even
    dismal when dry. I expect WalMart doesn't regularly assign
    someone to check that for lubrication on their
    bicycle-shaped-objects. At least we commonly see them with
    bent aluminum levers as the user tried to lock them and
    failed. Heck even lesser LBS BSOs around here are seldom
    lubed or locked properly.

    --
    Andrew Muzi
    www.yellowjersey.org
    Open every day since 1 April, 1971

  7. Per Dan:

    Quoted message said:

    quick release. If it releases unexpectedly while riding, it is
    probably dangerous.

    "probably" ???
    --
    PeteCresswell

  8. I'm really beginng to think that maybe they shouldn't put QR's on bikes
    that cost less that what an experienced cyclist would bother paying for
    a bike.

    How many of these, I wonder, are the cause of bad instalation (A.K.A.
    common stupitidity), not design?

    - -
    These comments compliments of,
    Your Friendly Neighborhood Wheelman

    My web Site:
    http://geocities.com/czcorner

    To E-mail me:
    ChrisZCorner "at" webtv "dot" net

  9. jim beam <[email hidden]> wrote in
    news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    regarding this specific article;

    1. it /doesn't/ mention lawyer lips.


    But it does mention their cheaper cousins, Nader's Hooks...

  10. jim beam said:
    Quoted message said:


    therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
    deliberate use of a misleading title.

    Um, no, the article was forwarded because some might it interesting.

    On the other hand, if flaming someone over the title of their posting
    isn't a troll, then I don't know what is.

  11. Tim McNamara said:
    Dan said:

    I have no doubt that is possible for a cheap manufacturer to turn
    out a dangerous quick release. If it releases unexpectedly while
    riding, it is probably dangerous.

    There's no "probably" about it. Without seeing the quick release and
    fork in question, however, no one here is going to be in a position to
    comment intelligently on the plaintiff's claims.

    I believe that I may have seen one of the QRs in question; it was, as
    I recall, hard to open and close, and it flunked my quickie test; when
    clamped in the manner I usually employ (lever straight out, spin down
    the opposite nut to firm contact, clamp the lever) it still allowed
    the axle to move within the clamping area when I applied side pressure
    to the rim. This was a couple of years ago, and I am not entirely
    certain that the bike involved was one of the ones directly under
    discussion, but I recall that it was a kid's bike, fairly new, with a
    suspension fork, and it was a department-store brand.

    Quoted message said:

    I also note in a few seconds with Google, something the article's
    author didn't bother to do, that there is a recall on these bicycles
    dated 2001:

    http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml01/01132.html

    Not related to the QR, however; that was due to a faulty fork.
    (Suspension forks have been the subject of a number of bike recalls.)

    There has been no recall over the QR itself.

    Quoted message said:

    And a few more hysterical things:

    http://www.shokbikes.org/momstories.htm

    That's unfortunately typical of the kind of overreaction that occurs
    today when Junior is "endangered". Too bad more of those folks don't
    act the same way about the subject of the hazard to their own kids in
    the same vehicle when they drive along with a cell phone glued to
    their ear.

    Quoted message said:

    I'm always amazed that people are surprised when they don't know how
    to use something, don't exert any effort to learn, and then get hurt
    when they use the thing.

    In the case of the bicycle, it's viewed as a "what's to learn?"
    situation. The fact that the bikes today look pretty much like the
    ones of 20 or 40 (or more) years ago lulls the buyers into a sense of
    familiarity. While there are bikes with the level of simplicity that
    was common in the bikes of the '70s and prior, many current bikes have
    a number of new and (to those who have not kept up) unfamiliar ways to
    trip up the unwary.

    Quoted message said:

    Now, I'm not saying that Wal*Mart's cheapo
    bikes aren't defective because I don't know and I wouldn't be
    surprised if they are. Maybe it's the toy mentality, confusing a bike
    with a toy instead of realizing that it is in fact a vehicle.

    In large part, I don't think that Wal-Mart is driving the perception,
    but rather that the perception is driving Wal-Mart. In much of the
    US, riding a bike is viewed as something that only children and stupid
    liberal [censored] do. (That description courtesy of a person ahead of
    me in a checkout line in a Wal-Mart in Salina, KS earlier this year.)
    As a result, Wal-Mart probably places the bikes in the part of the
    store where they expect that the majority of potential buyers will be
    looking for them.

    From what I've seen in looking at bikes in Wal-Marts, it appears that
    the company has been reducing the number of QR-equipped bikes that
    they sell. It also appears that they could stand to improve their
    bike assembler training; at several stores I have seen mountain bikes
    whose forks were installed backwards. I've seen other assembly
    shorcomings commonly as well. (Wal-Mart isn't alone on that; Target
    has the same problem.) Otherwise, the bikes sold at Wal-Mart appear
    to be largely a YGWYPF product; low-end, heavy, low-tech, but adequate
    for trasportation and casual use, as long as performance, fit and (in
    many cases) comfort are not important criteria or are well-met by the
    bike in question.

    Quoted message said:

    I haven't looked much through this Web site, but it makes at least one
    good point- bikes are not toys:

    http://www.bikesrnottoys.com/

    It's not as hysterical and misinformed as the other site, but I still
    find assertions to disagree with.

    The middle ground view would hold that based on wide experience, a lot
    of folks buy bikes at big department stores and proceed to get a lot
    of years of casual use from them with little or no trouble; the site's
    claim that "toy store" bikes don't last is not supported by objective
    fact. If they said that mass retailer bikes may cost more to repair
    than replace because the repair parts suppliers are not catering to
    the low-cost market, they would be closer to on-target.

    Most big retailers have stopped charging for bike assembly, at least
    in my area and the regions through which I travel; the site's
    assertion that most stores charge for assembly is probably out of date
    or regionally driven. They are largely correct that the large
    non-specialist retailers do not typically have anyone trained in
    adjustment or repair of the bikes on duty full-time, and that they
    frequently just replace a broken unit with another of the same
    type...which may or may not have the same problem[1]. This, too, is
    variable, however; at least one Wal-Mart near me now has a bike tech
    who does, in fact, repair the returned units for the customer when
    requested (within certain limits) instead of just automatically
    replacing the bike with a different one, and he's a full-time
    employee, but he has additional duties beyond bike assembly..

    The one-size-fits-all criticism is largely valid, but for the casual
    rider and for the fairly substantial market segment for whom one of
    the department store bikes is a good fit, it's less of an issue than
    for the enthusiast market.

    The claim that lbs bikes have resale value while retailer bikes have
    none is an apples-and-oranges comparison at best. On the one hand, an
    expensive lbs bike has no factually similar retail-store unit for
    comparison, but a low-end lbs bike will bring little more if resold
    several years later than its cheaper Wal-Mart cousins; I see plenty of
    older lbs bikes at Goodwill for $20 or less right next to
    flashier-looking Roadmasters that are tagged at a higher price...and
    all of them will find a buyer. Which is the better return on
    investment; a $600 bike that sells for $200 four years later, or a
    $200 bike that sells for $25 four years later? The depreciation is
    less with the cheaper unit, and if the rider's needs are such that the
    cheaper unit will do the job, the $600 expenditure produces no
    savings.

    I would hold that anything that gets people on bikes and riding is a
    good thing. Much of the population simply can't afford the
    substantial incremental difference in price between the Wal-Mart bikes
    and the lbs units, nor can they afford to have a bike professionally
    repaired if something fails in any event. For that large and growing
    part of the market, then, the cheaper bikes at the mass-market
    retailers are the entry point that's possible; denigrating it
    unnecessarily serves only to persuade people that they really don't
    want to spend the money on a bike at all. I'd present the argument
    differently if I was writing the copy for that website, acknowledging
    that the mass-market bikes are, in reality, precisely what they are;
    cheap, mass-produced, low-end bikes that are not in the same class as
    the majority of lbs bikes. I'd present the neutral view which they
    claim to support but which is pretty obviously not present. I'd point
    out the differences in each area as well as the relevance, just
    presenting the facts with careful attention to explaining what each
    point really means in terms of ridability, durability, and value. If,
    after carefully weighing the issues from a well-informed base, the
    buyer finds that the rider's needs are met by the department store
    bikes, then there is no reason not to buy one.

    [1] One place where I've consistently seen a really annoying
    shortcoming in the department-store bikes is in the area of the seat
    mounting clamp. This isn't new; I first battled with them in the
    '60s, and had hoped that either the design or its execution would have
    improved in 40 years...but it hasn't. If anything, the crappy POS
    clamp on the typical Roadmaster is so unutterably awful that the only
    way to get the seat to stay at the desired angle is to tack-weld the
    clamp sections together after positioning the seat, or replace the
    clamp with a better one, or replace the seatpost with one that uses a
    better type of clamp.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

  12. Quoted message said:
    jim beam said:

    therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
    deliberate use of a misleading title.

    Um, no, the article was forwarded because some might it interesting.

    On the other hand, if flaming someone over the title of their posting
    isn't a troll, then I don't know what is.


    the only mention of lawyer lips is by you - in your title. if you're
    not trolling [sic], you didn't read or understand the article and are
    not familiar with the prevalence of this kind of lawsuit.

  13. email hidden said:
    jim beam said:
    Quoted message said:


    therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
    deliberate use of a misleading title.

    Um, no, the article was forwarded because some might it interesting.

    On the other hand, if flaming someone over the title of their posting
    isn't a troll, then I don't know what is.

    It's a nitpick. A fair nitpick, really, because one of the marks of a
    troll is posting an article with a subject line that's not really
    accurate for the topic. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it now,
    unless someone decides that the actual topic merits a separate thread.
    --
    Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
    Some gardening required to reply via email.
    Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

  14. In article <[email hidden]>,

    Werehatrack said:
    email hidden said:
    jim beam said:

    >
    therefore you're trolling for a lawyer lip argument based on your
    deliberate use of a misleading title.

    Um, no, the article was forwarded because some might it interesting.

    On the other hand, if flaming someone over the title of their posting
    isn't a troll, then I don't know what is.

    It's a nitpick. A fair nitpick, really, because one of the marks of a
    troll is posting an article with a subject line that's not really
    accurate for the topic. Unfortunately, we're stuck with it now,
    unless someone decides that the actual topic merits a separate thread.

    Can always change the title.

    --
    Michael Press

  15. "Werehatrack" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    The claim that lbs bikes have resale value while retailer bikes have
    none is an apples-and-oranges comparison at best. On the one hand, an
    expensive lbs bike has no factually similar retail-store unit for
    comparison, but a low-end lbs bike will bring little more if resold
    several years later than its cheaper Wal-Mart cousins; I see plenty of
    older lbs bikes at Goodwill for $20 or less right next to
    flashier-looking Roadmasters that are tagged at a higher price...and
    all of them will find a buyer. Which is the better return on
    investment; a $600 bike that sells for $200 four years later, or a
    $200 bike that sells for $25 four years later? The depreciation is
    less with the cheaper unit

    You need to works on your sums a bit more; the figures you pulled out of the
    air say the opposite of what you claim they do.

  16. "damyth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    Where is this bushing that the
    article alludes to?

    The article does not allude to the bushing.

  17. "Andy B." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "damyth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    Where is this bushing that the
    article alludes to?

    The article does not allude to the bushing.

    "He criticized the manufacturer's choice of materials for the
    quick-release lever, testifying that a soft *bushing* was insufficient to
    hold the lever in a locked position."

  18. Per Werehatrack:

    Quoted message said:

    I have to wonder how much of the shift away from the bike as a school
    transport vehicle nationwide is attributable to an increase in thefts,

    Also, at least around here, there's been a series of school district
    consolidations so that more kids are going to bigger schools further away.

    Combine that with roads that have no shoulder and people routinely going 50+ in
    35mph zones while talking on cell phones and you've probably got one more
    reason.

    I rode or walked to/from school in West Chester Pa every single day until I was
    old enough to get a motorbike - and then I rode that.

    Now we live nearby in Paoli. Conestoga High School and Tredryffrin Middle
    School are about the same distance away as West Chester Junior/Senior High
    School was when I was a kid: reasonably close - in spite of what I said about
    consolidation.

    In fact, the route from our house to those two schools is actually much less
    dangerous than most around here... but still, I'd consider it too dangerous for
    a kid to ride a bike to/from school every day. Some of it's not too bad, but
    there are a couple of stretches where there's just no place to hide when
    somebody comes barreling along at 60+ as they do in one 25 mph zone.

    On other roads, the roadside brush is worn away in the shape of the average car.

    If most kids in both schools rode maybe there'd be some safety in numbers - but
    most don't and there isn't.
    --
    PeteCresswell

  19. "Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Andy B." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "damyth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    Quoted message said:

    Where is this bushing that the
    article alludes to?

    The article does not allude to the bushing.

    "He criticized the manufacturer's choice of materials for the
    quick-release lever, testifying that a soft *bushing* was insufficient to
    hold the lever in a locked position."

    That is a statement, not an allusion.

  20. "Andy B." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Dan" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Andy B." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "damyth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    > Where is this bushing that the
    > article alludes to?
    >

    The article does not allude to the bushing.

    "He criticized the manufacturer's choice of materials for the
    quick-release lever, testifying that a soft *bushing* was insufficient to
    hold the lever in a locked position."

    That is a statement, not an allusion.

    Actually to be more accurate, the bushing is referred to, not alluded to.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.