3 ms·

I believe that it's illegal to booby-trap one's house, and I've heard of (apocryphal?) cases of burglars suing homeowners for injuries sustained during a burgla

I believe that it's illegal to booby-trap one's house, and I've heard of (apocryphal?) cases of burglars suing homeowners for injuries sustained during a burglary... I imagine such a brake-less bike would fall in that category.

wiredfool 14y ago
Thieves should avoid stealing fixies then. Especially from the top of a hill.
- davidw 14y ago
  It wasn't a fixed gear bicycle: you can obviously bring one of those to a halt by preventing the pedals from going around.
jlgreco 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney This is the only case I could find on wikipedia. Placing a bicycle outside with no brakes hooked up is a far cry from rigging a spring loaded shotgun to the door of an unoccupied building. It isn't even unheard of for people to legitimately (well, not legally I think...) ride bicycles without brakes, so where would you draw the line? If the police used a Ford Pinto as a bate car, could they be similarly at fault?
- nnnnnnnn 14y ago
  I put good odds on a jury drawing the line by putting the shopowner in considerable debt if not in jail.
- enraged_camel 14y ago
  >>Placing a bicycle outside with no brakes hooked up is a far cry from rigging a spring loaded shotgun to the door of an unoccupied building. Until the lack of brakes causes you to get hit by a car, or crash into a pedestrian and cause severe injury.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Obviously the only way to know for sure is for it to happen, but my money is on there being no way in hell there would be a conviction. A concealed spring-loaded shotgun hidden behind a door is, without any doubt whatsoever, intended to maim an unsuspecting person. A bicycle placed outside without breaks though? There are far too many plausible less than evil explanations for that to say with any certainty that a jury would side with the plaintiff. (Unless the shop did something particularly stupid like admit they put it there in that condition with intent to harm...) Now, could the guy still sue? Yeah, of course. He could also sue if a perfectly normal bike that he stole gave him blisters. That would be pretty dumb, and he wouldn't win, but he could still do it. The only thing that really matters at the end of the day is "can you get away with it". If there are better cases than the shotgun out there (and I imagine there should be if it is really so easy to sue for things like that), then I will of course re-evaluate my position.
- sliverstorm 14y ago
  If the police used a Ford Pinto as a bate car, could they be similarly at fault? I'm cracking up over here! I guess it would have to at least be a Pinto, nobody would ever steal a Chevette or Yugo...
reddit_clone 14y ago
How about super glue on the seats ans handle bars?

wiredfool 14y ago

Thieves should avoid stealing fixies then. Especially from the top of a hill.

davidw 14y ago
It wasn't a fixed gear bicycle: you can obviously bring one of those to a halt by preventing the pedals from going around.

jlgreco 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katko_v._Briney This is the only case I could find on wikipedia. Placing a bicycle outside with no brakes hooked up is a far cry from rigging a spring loaded shotgun to the door of an unoccupied building. It isn't even unheard of for people to legitimately (well, not legally I think...) ride bicycles without brakes, so where would you draw the line? If the police used a Ford Pinto as a bate car, could they be similarly at fault?

nnnnnnnn 14y ago
I put good odds on a jury drawing the line by putting the shopowner in considerable debt if not in jail.
enraged_camel 14y ago
>>Placing a bicycle outside with no brakes hooked up is a far cry from rigging a spring loaded shotgun to the door of an unoccupied building. Until the lack of brakes causes you to get hit by a car, or crash into a pedestrian and cause severe injury.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Obviously the only way to know for sure is for it to happen, but my money is on there being no way in hell there would be a conviction. A concealed spring-loaded shotgun hidden behind a door is, without any doubt whatsoever, intended to maim an unsuspecting person. A bicycle placed outside without breaks though? There are far too many plausible less than evil explanations for that to say with any certainty that a jury would side with the plaintiff. (Unless the shop did something particularly stupid like admit they put it there in that condition with intent to harm...) Now, could the guy still sue? Yeah, of course. He could also sue if a perfectly normal bike that he stole gave him blisters. That would be pretty dumb, and he wouldn't win, but he could still do it. The only thing that really matters at the end of the day is "can you get away with it". If there are better cases than the shotgun out there (and I imagine there should be if it is really so easy to sue for things like that), then I will of course re-evaluate my position.
sliverstorm 14y ago
If the police used a Ford Pinto as a bate car, could they be similarly at fault? I'm cracking up over here! I guess it would have to at least be a Pinto, nobody would ever steal a Chevette or Yugo...

reddit_clone 14y ago

How about super glue on the seats ans handle bars?