4 ms·

The hill argument is silly, but the core of the lawsuit is a design issue with the bike. > The suit claims that the bike’s design made it hard for the girls to

by elil17 4y ago

The hill argument is silly, but the core of the lawsuit is a design issue with the bike. > The suit claims that the bike’s design made it hard for the girls to control their speed as they sped downhill, specifically because of where the steering axis is placed in relation to the front wheel. As the suit lays out, the bike in question—the RadRunner—has “disc brakes in conjunction with a quick-release mechanism for detaching the front wheel.” This setup is common on a wide range of bikes, and the Steinsapirs claim that it is “a known safety hazard in the industry.” The suit goes on to argue that the quick release came loose as Steinsapir’s friend was applying the front brake, which allegedly caused the wheel to wobble and ultimately caused the crash. I don't know if what they're saying is true, but if it is it's certainly something that's very reasonable to sue over.

afiori 4y ago
So it has very little to do with the "E" and a lot more with it being a bad bike
- elil17 4y ago
  I think they are also making claims about the "E" but the claims which seem valid to me are about the "bike."
pc86 4y ago
If it's a known safety hazard, and it's designed that way on a wide range of bikes, it sounds like the parents should have known about it and weighed that risk.
- elil17 4y ago
  I think it's ridiculous to expect people to do some sort of extensive research before they use a product. Should people who smoked before the surgeon general's warning not have been able to sue the tobacco companies who hid evidence around the dangers of smoking? It would be the same sort of thing from a legal perspective here if the parents claims are true.
  - Wyoming23 4y ago
    Which, to be clear, the claim that a standard component is actually unsafe is absurd. Go look at the road bikes people are out riding on a Saturday morning. At least half of them will be disc brakes with quick release skewers. And these are bikes that people are putting thousands of miles on and ripping down mountain descents. I don't have any information on this bike in particular, but that setup is common and widely used.
  - slowmovintarget 4y ago
    No it is not, especially if you are a parent. My wife spends hours upon hours researching product safety before selecting a bicycle, scooter, shoes, moisturizer, dishware, and other products for use by our family, especially for use by our child. She does this because she believes it is her job as a parent. The Latin phrase Caveat Emptor, "let the buyer beware" comes to us from the Romans more than two thousand years ago. Today there are forums, reviews, lists... when there are safety complaints about a design or a product, it is easier than ever to become aware of these kinds of problems. Companies providing products have a responsibility to provide their products in good faith. This is similar to traffic rules that govern who has a responsibility to yield at an intersection. Assuming you have "right of way" won't help you avoid an accident. That's an assumption of someone else's adherence to the rules. In the same way that you freaking check that the other driver has yielded before making your turn or driving through, you check that a product is safe for your child to use. For this specific instance, why would you deprive a 12 year old child of the exercise they need to grow properly by buying them a motorized bicycle?
    - elil17 4y ago
      The parents in question didn't even buy their kid the bike. It was her friend's sister's bike. The law is perfect-tendor, not caveat emptor, for US transactions without explicit agreement to as-is terms. If you think the blame falls upon the parents (say, the friend's parents), should you extend that same logic to other cases? What about baby powder talc, thalidomide, and plastic with BPA? Where is the line I think the way we draw that line now is good. Companies have an obligation to provide products that are as safe as reasonably possible and to inform consumers of safety risks when they cannot be avoided. People can be compensated for the harm caused to them when companies fail to do that. The extreme other end, where people have to research product safety for everything they use in order to avoid snake oil and death traps, seems like a huge waste of everyone's time. I would do the same for my child if I had one, and tremendous respect to your wife for doing that for your kid, but I hope that technology and society reach a place where available goods are generally as safe as you would expect them to be. I hope that if someone dies because they run their well-made E-bike into a wall, that's on them, but that no one ever dies because their E-bike has a faulty component. The latter case is what's claimed here and I think that, if that claim is true, that means the parents here should win the case.
- bell-cot 4y ago
  Far simpler than that - the parents should have known that kids riding bikes at high speed down steep hills was dangerous, regardless of the details of the design of the particular bike involved.
  - elil17 4y ago
    Depends on how steep the hill was. Not saying that the bike company is actually at fault - I don't know. But I do think it really depends on the circumstances.
bell-cot 4y ago
This (the quoted bit) is a convoluted theory, essentially about "which straw broke the camel's back?" - in an extremely dangerous situation, which was already far outside of widely-accepted parameters for the safe maintenance & use of both the specific bicycle, and bicycles in general. And the same for adult supervision of children's activities. In a country where you can have your child seized by the authorities for letting him walk down a flat, quiet suburban sidestreet without adult escort - these parents should be in jail for reckless child endangerment resulting in death. And the required design change for the bikes should be "If {computerized safety mechanism} is not aware of a legally adult human rider, and speed is greater than {limit}, then immediately call 911 and the Child Welfare authorities." (Yes, obviously, that ain't gonna happen. Arguing over "which straw" and blaming $Corporation feels cool, sounds good, and does not upset anyone in the jurisdiction who has much social status. Those are the things which really matter here.)
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > these parents should be in jail for reckless child endangerment Do you have children?
  - bell-cot 4y ago
    (Re-read my 3rd para, and consider that I might be edging into satire in my criticism of the self-serving hypocrisies and failings of the American legal system.)
rconti 4y ago
As a long-time cyclist, owner of 3 bicycles with disc brakes, 2 of which have quick-release, this suit is the first time I found out it was "a known safety hazard in the industry". I only had to give it a brief moment of thought before figuring out how and why this setup could eject the front wheel given a sufficiently loose QR skewer. That said, I think the parents should look up the term "lawyer tabs"[1] and realize not everything can be solved with a lawsuit. Unless they expect the tabs to be made even bigger and more infuriating. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_end#Lawyer_lips https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_end#Lawyer_lips

by elil17 4y ago

afiori 4y ago

So it has very little to do with the "E" and a lot more with it being a bad bike

elil17 4y ago
I think they are also making claims about the "E" but the claims which seem valid to me are about the "bike."

pc86 4y ago

If it's a known safety hazard, and it's designed that way on a wide range of bikes, it sounds like the parents should have known about it and weighed that risk.

elil17 4y ago
I think it's ridiculous to expect people to do some sort of extensive research before they use a product. Should people who smoked before the surgeon general's warning not have been able to sue the tobacco companies who hid evidence around the dangers of smoking? It would be the same sort of thing from a legal perspective here if the parents claims are true.
- Wyoming23 4y ago
  Which, to be clear, the claim that a standard component is actually unsafe is absurd. Go look at the road bikes people are out riding on a Saturday morning. At least half of them will be disc brakes with quick release skewers. And these are bikes that people are putting thousands of miles on and ripping down mountain descents. I don't have any information on this bike in particular, but that setup is common and widely used.
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  No it is not, especially if you are a parent. My wife spends hours upon hours researching product safety before selecting a bicycle, scooter, shoes, moisturizer, dishware, and other products for use by our family, especially for use by our child. She does this because she believes it is her job as a parent. The Latin phrase Caveat Emptor, "let the buyer beware" comes to us from the Romans more than two thousand years ago. Today there are forums, reviews, lists... when there are safety complaints about a design or a product, it is easier than ever to become aware of these kinds of problems. Companies providing products have a responsibility to provide their products in good faith. This is similar to traffic rules that govern who has a responsibility to yield at an intersection. Assuming you have "right of way" won't help you avoid an accident. That's an assumption of someone else's adherence to the rules. In the same way that you freaking check that the other driver has yielded before making your turn or driving through, you check that a product is safe for your child to use. For this specific instance, why would you deprive a 12 year old child of the exercise they need to grow properly by buying them a motorized bicycle?
  - elil17 4y ago
    The parents in question didn't even buy their kid the bike. It was her friend's sister's bike. The law is perfect-tendor, not caveat emptor, for US transactions without explicit agreement to as-is terms. If you think the blame falls upon the parents (say, the friend's parents), should you extend that same logic to other cases? What about baby powder talc, thalidomide, and plastic with BPA? Where is the line I think the way we draw that line now is good. Companies have an obligation to provide products that are as safe as reasonably possible and to inform consumers of safety risks when they cannot be avoided. People can be compensated for the harm caused to them when companies fail to do that. The extreme other end, where people have to research product safety for everything they use in order to avoid snake oil and death traps, seems like a huge waste of everyone's time. I would do the same for my child if I had one, and tremendous respect to your wife for doing that for your kid, but I hope that technology and society reach a place where available goods are generally as safe as you would expect them to be. I hope that if someone dies because they run their well-made E-bike into a wall, that's on them, but that no one ever dies because their E-bike has a faulty component. The latter case is what's claimed here and I think that, if that claim is true, that means the parents here should win the case.
bell-cot 4y ago
Far simpler than that - the parents should have known that kids riding bikes at high speed down steep hills was dangerous, regardless of the details of the design of the particular bike involved.
- elil17 4y ago
  Depends on how steep the hill was. Not saying that the bike company is actually at fault - I don't know. But I do think it really depends on the circumstances.

bell-cot 4y ago

This (the quoted bit) is a convoluted theory, essentially about "which straw broke the camel's back?" - in an extremely dangerous situation, which was already far outside of widely-accepted parameters for the safe maintenance & use of both the specific bicycle, and bicycles in general. And the same for adult supervision of children's activities. In a country where you can have your child seized by the authorities for letting him walk down a flat, quiet suburban sidestreet without adult escort - these parents should be in jail for reckless child endangerment resulting in death. And the required design change for the bikes should be "If {computerized safety mechanism} is not aware of a legally adult human rider, and speed is greater than {limit}, then immediately call 911 and the Child Welfare authorities." (Yes, obviously, that ain't gonna happen. Arguing over "which straw" and blaming $Corporation feels cool, sounds good, and does not upset anyone in the jurisdiction who has much social status. Those are the things which really matter here.)

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
> these parents should be in jail for reckless child endangerment Do you have children?
- bell-cot 4y ago
  (Re-read my 3rd para, and consider that I might be edging into satire in my criticism of the self-serving hypocrisies and failings of the American legal system.)

rconti 4y ago

As a long-time cyclist, owner of 3 bicycles with disc brakes, 2 of which have quick-release, this suit is the first time I found out it was "a known safety hazard in the industry". I only had to give it a brief moment of thought before figuring out how and why this setup could eject the front wheel given a sufficiently loose QR skewer. That said, I think the parents should look up the term "lawyer tabs"[1] and realize not everything can be solved with a lawsuit. Unless they expect the tabs to be made even bigger and more infuriating. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_end#Lawyer_lips https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_end#Lawyer_lips