On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 3:34:37 PM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
On 3/25/2017 1:31 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:16:17 AM UTC-4, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 20:40:36 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 3/24/2017 8:11 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Mar 2017 11:18:58 -0700 (PDT), Sir Ridesalot
wrote:

On Friday, March 24, 2017 at 1:36:54 PM UTC-4, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 3/24/2017 11:35 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
... I rarely ride at night, giving
the impression that I don't own a bicycle headlight. Given my
speculation that a majority of the bicycling world follows a similar
operating paradigm, the general impression would be that few riders
own a bicycle headlight.

Many lower-end bikes come with stickers saying "Never Ride at Night."
Surely, such "Danger! Danger!" warnings affect people's behavior.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Or maybe they just forgot to add a line saying "...without using an approved bicycle light or reflectors". Without the warning not to ride at night the bicycle manufacturer and the store are both open to being sued when some idiot without lights or even reflectors rides at night on a dark road and gets hit.

Cheers

Years ago I bought a Greg LeMond frame and built up a road bike. The
frame came with small, arrow shaped decals near the dropouts, saying
"Failure to tighten this bolt may cause loss of the wheel".

Together with the "Never ride at night" decals that Frank mentions and
your warning about being sued, it probably demonstrates the level of
intelligence that others perceive bicyclists to have.

After all, they have to be told repeatedly, over and over again, to
always wear those helmets that will save their lives, to use the
asphalt melting bright lights, that tiny little flashing lights will
make them 32% safer.

Good Lord! Can these people be bright enough to be out alone? Riding
on public roads?

Perhaps if we could limit bicycle riding so that it takes place only
on approved pathways, never at night, and only under the supervision
of a trained supervisor we could stop the carnage on the roads caused
by these two wheeled killers.
--
Cheers,

John B.


I've mentioned this case before here on RBT.

My very good friend's company was sued after an underage
thief was killed crossing an Interstate (pedestrians and
cyclists prohibited) with a freshly stolen bicycle. The open
QR front wheel fell out when he came up out of the ditch
onto a traffic lane. The attorney for the mother of said
miscreant argued that while Schwinns in his store had "do
not ride at night" stickers and also "do not ride without
properly securing wheel quick release" stickers, the brand
in question lacked both. The jury opined that the bicycles
we imported were nonconforming to 'accepted industry standards'.

My personal opinion is that U.S. courts have perpetrated some
extremely illogical rulings on the population.

An individual orders a cup of hot coffee. They are served a cup of hot
coffee. They then accept and pay for the cup of hot coffee and carry
it away. Subsequently they spill the hot coffee on themselves and it
is determined that it was the people who brewed the coffee that were
at fault.

Now you tell the story about the chap that steals a bicycle and it is
the seller who is at fault that he gets run over.

Here we don't have jury trials which means that one has to convince a
trained jurist that you are correct and I do not believe that they
will accept the premise that not tightening the axle nuts on a bicycle
sitting in your shop is the cause of a bicycle thief crashing. Nor
that spilling hot coffee on yourself is someone else's fault :-)

I suppose that ultimately someone will steal a bicycle and when caught
with the stolen goods, tried, convicted and sentenced, will than sue
the manufacturer of the bicycle since logically if "they" hadn't made
the bicycle it couldn't have been stolen....

It is obvious that "reality" in the U.S. is significantly different
than the rest of the world.

The OLD lady bought the coffee, set it between her legs as she sat on the front passenger seat of the stopped car in the drive-thru lane. Then she removed the lid of the coffee. The driver drove forwards which caused the very hot coffee to spill and scald her in a very sensitive region of her anatomy. IMHO, the fault was due to three people, #1, the woman for putting the hot coffe between her legs and then removing the lid, #2, her son for putting the car into motion whilst his mother had the opened coffee cup between her legs and lastly #3, the store for selling what the courts determined was OVERLY hot coffee.


You emphasize the word 'old' and yet most teenagers have
learned that hot coffee is hot. Maybe 'old' is not such a
critical factor here.

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

I emphasized the word 'old' because I'm pretty certain that the judge gave the payout he did due to her age and to where the injury was located. then again you'd think that her younger son who was the driver at the time would have had more sense than to putt he car into motion whilst an opened cup of coffee was sitting btween his mother's legs. Had the coffee cup lid been on the cup the hot coffee would not have spilled. Had the woman not had the cup between her legs she'd have not been scalded in an extremely sensitive region of the body. Had the son not put the car in motion whilst the opened coffee cup was whre it was it would not have spilled. In other words, blame was give to everyone *EXCCEPT* the idiots who caused the action in the first place = the customers.

Cheers