A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Mountain Biking
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Carlton Reid on QR safety



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old February 4th 06, 10:23 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carlton Reid on QR safety

Andy H wrote:
"David Martin" wrote in message
oups.com...

Werehatrack wrote:

Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter. Is it
possible for you to accept the fact that for the majority of the
readers, the evidence thus far published is not persuasive that there
is a serious problem here which is not related to user error?


Why do you claim to speak for the majority of readers, most of whom
have expressed no public opinion on the matter?

..d


Does the fact that the majority of people have expressed no public opinion
(read; interest) speak volumes as to the severity of the problem? Do YOU
know the relevant statistics to say that this is a major problem or design
flaw?

Life is inherently risky and I for one would rather check my qr's before a
ride


And what if it happened after 3 hours of riding even when you checked it
before the ride?

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
Ads
  #12  
Old February 4th 06, 10:24 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carlton Reid on QR safety

David wrote:
James Annan wrote:

Werehatrack wrote:

Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter.




However, those who read Carlton's article on Bikebiz might think it
safe to draw the conclusion that "industry experts say QRs are safe,
when used correctly", even though numerous industry experts have quite
clearly expressed the contrary view.

They will also not know that one case was recently settled in favour
of the rider.

James



Out of court settlements almost always include a statement that the
plantiff is not admitting liability. It is often less costly to pay a
small settlement than it is to defend the claim, particularly if the
jurisdiction is known to be plaintiff-favorable.


That first plantiff should be defendant.

Greg

--
"All my time I spent in heaven
Revelries of dance and wine
Waking to the sound of laughter
Up I'd rise and kiss the sky" - The Mekons
  #13  
Old February 4th 06, 11:37 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carlton Reid on QR safety

Tim McNamara wrote:

James Annan writes:


Werehatrack wrote:


Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of
disc brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the
matter.


However, those who read Carlton's article on Bikebiz might think it
safe to draw the conclusion that "industry experts say QRs are safe,
when used correctly", even though numerous industry experts have
quite clearly expressed the contrary view.



Don't appeal to authority. Just state the facts, which are simple and
straightforward.


I'm only pointing out that Carlton's appeal to authority isn't even
honest, let alone correct. He knows that numerous industry experts
dispute what he wrote.

James
--
James Annan
see web pages for email
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/julesandjames/home/
http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/
  #14  
Old February 5th 06, 12:02 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carlton Reid on QR safety


"Richard" wrote in message
...
Snip -
......but as I neither sell, use, maintain, nor have any access to disk
brakes or QR axles, I could add nothing useful to the debate.

R.

Then do just that, you have no potential problems do you? Do you have the
statistics to hand?

Andy H


  #15  
Old February 5th 06, 12:22 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carlton Reid on QR safety


"G.T." wrote in message
...
Andy H wrote:
"David Martin" wrote in message
oups.com...

Werehatrack wrote:

Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter. Is it
possible for you to accept the fact that for the majority of the
readers, the evidence thus far published is not persuasive that there
is a serious problem here which is not related to user error?

Why do you claim to speak for the majority of readers, most of whom
have expressed no public opinion on the matter?

..d


Does the fact that the majority of people have expressed no public
opinion (read; interest) speak volumes as to the severity of the problem?
Do YOU know the relevant statistics to say that this is a major problem
or design flaw?

Life is inherently risky and I for one would rather check my qr's before
a ride


And what if it happened after 3 hours of riding even when you checked it
before the ride?

Greg

Life sucks and **** happens, our (my anyway) pastime is rife with risk. If
the design is inherently flawed why have we not all been maimed by our
disk/qr problems? (As MV would no doubt wish :-).

We drive our cars with unsafe airbags and inherently flawed seat restraints.
Trains crash and so do planes. I'm not trying to be a troll here but should
we get some perspective on this.

Andy H


  #16  
Old February 5th 06, 01:09 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carlton Reid on QR safety


Andy H wrote:

Life sucks and **** happens, our (my anyway) pastime is rife with risk. If
the design is inherently flawed why have we not all been maimed by our
disk/qr problems?


As I understand it, it's because it takes particular circumstances to
make the failure likely - for example, repeated very hard braking,
especially on bumpy descents. Most riders do not encounter those
circumstances.

But those circumstances are part of the normal design conditions for
certain bikes. If a design injures a person who's using it in the
manner for which it was designed, there's a problem. The occurrence
doesn't have to be common for this to be true.

We drive our cars with unsafe airbags and inherently flawed seat restraints.
Trains crash and so do planes. I'm not trying to be a troll here but should
we get some perspective on this.


I won't defend airbags. But I'll point out that when people are
injured by airbags, train or plane crashes, the law does not say "Oh,
get over it. You knew that **** happens."

- Frank Krygowski

  #17  
Old February 5th 06, 02:00 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carlton Reid on QR safety

I have come here not to express an opinion on the debate, but rather
amazement at the fact that Annan is still posting here about it.

  #18  
Old February 5th 06, 02:33 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carlton Reid on QR safety

"Adam Rush" writes:

I have come here not to express an opinion on the debate, but rather
amazement at the fact that Annan is still posting here about it.


"Here" being which newsgroup or Web-leech portal?

And why would you be surprised? He has found a serious design flaw
and has detailed that flaw. It is up to the bike industry to correct
it. In the meantime, individuals need to have this information in
order to make an informed decision about whether to buy or use bikes
with this design flaw.
  #20  
Old February 5th 06, 04:22 AM posted to uk.rec.cycling,rec.bicycles.tech,alt.mountain-bike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Carlton Reid on QR safety

On Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:24:51 -0800, "G.T."
wrote:

David wrote:
James Annan wrote:

Werehatrack wrote:

Those of us who have seen your prior postings about the issue of disc
brake ejections are fully aware of your position on the matter.



However, those who read Carlton's article on Bikebiz might think it
safe to draw the conclusion that "industry experts say QRs are safe,
when used correctly", even though numerous industry experts have quite
clearly expressed the contrary view.

They will also not know that one case was recently settled in favour
of the rider.

James



Out of court settlements almost always include a statement that the
plantiff is not admitting liability. It is often less costly to pay a
small settlement than it is to defend the claim, particularly if the
jurisdiction is known to be plaintiff-favorable.


That first plantiff should be defendant.


True, as is the statement so amended.

And in fact, in most such cases, getting an out-of-court settlement
also has two other beneficial results for the defendant; it ends the
case completely without any opening for it to continue through some
sort of appeal, and it precludes the possibility that the case can be
used as a precedent. Given the combination of cost of defense, the
possibility that the suit might initially be lost (and thereby often
bring on a spate of me-too suits), the hazard that the defense expense
might dwarf the actual settlement if an appeal is (or must be) filed,
and the hazard that the finding might be cited in other cases as a
precedent, there's lots of reason to shut down the process by making
an offer to settle even when the case isn't necessarily all that
strong for the plaintiff.

In some states, the impetus to settle is being reduced by
defendant-friendly changes to statute, often made under the guise of
"ending lawsuit abuse". Sometimes, what's billed as an abuse-control
measure turns out to be a PLI-defense attorney's nightmare...because
the defense lawyers don't get paid the big bucks for doing the
slam-dunk early dismissal filings, they only make the big bucks when
the case goes on long enough to rack up some worthwhile billable
hours.

Look for subtle and stealthy moves by PLI defense attorneys, and more
open ones by plaintiff lawyers, to get plaintiff-friendly changes made
if their billable hours drop too low. They both have a vested
interest in keeping the process alive.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Anniversary BR(52) 19.05.05 flyingdutch Australia 44 June 19th 05 03:19 AM
Safety Case / Audit Al C-F UK 9 January 13th 05 09:30 PM
Helmet Law: Upgrade to Omnibus Safety Legislation Concerned Citizens Social Issues 0 November 27th 04 01:12 AM
Reports from Sweden Garry Jones General 17 October 14th 03 05:23 PM
Reports from Sweden Garry Jones Social Issues 14 October 14th 03 05:23 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.