G
Gary Young
Guest
Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Gary Young) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (Gary Young) wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> >But your attitude seems to be, we could lift a finger,
> >> >but we don't want to spend the money. Better that our
> >> >customers should pay the price for our stupidity.
> >> >Isn't that what you're saying? -- we could fix the
> >> >problem, but we won't. The only costs will be born by
> >> >someone else. We don't mind killing off a few
> >> >customers as long as it doesn't hurt our bottom line.
> <snip>
> >> >I'm quite surprised to see you pursue this line. All I
> >> >can say is that if this is your idea of customer
> >> >service, then I'll never buy one of your frames.
> >>
> >> Your (il)logical conclusions and inability to
> >> understand my position are astonishing. You really
> >> "don't get it", do you?
> >
> >Well, I should have been more temporate, for civility's
> >sake. Nonetheless, I think your position is contrary to
> >the law and morally obtuse. I find it troubling that you
> >haven't responded to a question I've posed a couple of
> >times: does the industry have a duty to warn its
> >customers about this problem?
>
> My "position" is that the manufacturers and CPSC probably
> don't think there IS a problem, and I'd like to see that
> remedied by collecting some data that might influence them
> (assuming of course that it shows there IS a problem).
>
> And FWIW, I don't have a "position" on how the rest of the
> industry handles potential liability. I have observations,
> which I shared and you subsequently ascribed to springing
> from my own moral code.
>
> Does the industry have a duty to warn customers NOW? I
> don't know... it all depends on how compelling the data
> they have is. I have no problem at all believing the data
> they have right now doesn't compel them to do an expensive
> recall / or to scare existing customers. I say that
> because (as I've said about a hundred times now...)
> they've all heard about skewers spontaneously unscrewing
> themselves, and a few reports of this happening to
> customers with disc brakes won't stand out as anything
> particularly unusual, barring more data.
>
I have seen this kind of "filtering effect" at work in other
contexts. For instance, years ago I was prescribed a
medication that had a rather disagreeable side effect for
me. I went to my doctor, he consulted his physicians desk
reference, told me, "No one has reported that side effect,"
and suggested, ever so gently, that it was all in my head.
Much later I read an article about the medication that
mentioned that side effect.
I don't think the doctor was at fault, or even the
manufacturer of the medication. I suspect that when the
manufacturer did its initial run of tests, it drew up a list
of side effects that were prevalent to show up in their
trials. Unfortunately, afterwards such a list can function
as a filter excluding other valid reports of side effects.
But even in that case, my doctor did something about the
situation -- switching me to another medication.
Furthermore, I don't think such a filtering effect is at
work here. Let's look at the lawyer from Trek as an example.
I find it hard to believe that a lawyer contacted by the
trade press about this problem would simply write it off as
the usual operator error, particularly after he's informed
that it's confined to disc-brake forks. If he went to one of
the engineers at Trek, he would have been told that this is
a different sort of claim and that it merits further study.
If he's a competent attorney, he would know that it's Trek's
duty to look into it or at the very least, pressure the fork
suppliers to look into it.
I suppose it's possible that industry lawyers are stone cold
stupid, but I'm not sure that matters. The tort system
punishes stupidity as well as venality.
I suspect that the industry is hoping there are no claims
until the problem can be addressed quietly.
Furthermore, given the evidence that's already been brought
to light, I don't think the studies you propose would do any
good. I'm not suggesting such studies would necessarily have
no scientific validity, but I suspect that if an industry
lawyer doesn't think that the opinion of a respected
engineer like Jobst is reason enough to be worried, he's not
going to change his mind because a bunch of guys on usenet
conducted experiments in their garages. Such a study would
have so little credibility (from a lawyer's perspective)
that it would not be a prod to action.
> [email protected] (Gary Young) wrote:
>
> >Mark Hickey <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:<[email protected]>...
> >> [email protected] (Gary Young) wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip>
> >> >But your attitude seems to be, we could lift a finger,
> >> >but we don't want to spend the money. Better that our
> >> >customers should pay the price for our stupidity.
> >> >Isn't that what you're saying? -- we could fix the
> >> >problem, but we won't. The only costs will be born by
> >> >someone else. We don't mind killing off a few
> >> >customers as long as it doesn't hurt our bottom line.
> <snip>
> >> >I'm quite surprised to see you pursue this line. All I
> >> >can say is that if this is your idea of customer
> >> >service, then I'll never buy one of your frames.
> >>
> >> Your (il)logical conclusions and inability to
> >> understand my position are astonishing. You really
> >> "don't get it", do you?
> >
> >Well, I should have been more temporate, for civility's
> >sake. Nonetheless, I think your position is contrary to
> >the law and morally obtuse. I find it troubling that you
> >haven't responded to a question I've posed a couple of
> >times: does the industry have a duty to warn its
> >customers about this problem?
>
> My "position" is that the manufacturers and CPSC probably
> don't think there IS a problem, and I'd like to see that
> remedied by collecting some data that might influence them
> (assuming of course that it shows there IS a problem).
>
> And FWIW, I don't have a "position" on how the rest of the
> industry handles potential liability. I have observations,
> which I shared and you subsequently ascribed to springing
> from my own moral code.
>
> Does the industry have a duty to warn customers NOW? I
> don't know... it all depends on how compelling the data
> they have is. I have no problem at all believing the data
> they have right now doesn't compel them to do an expensive
> recall / or to scare existing customers. I say that
> because (as I've said about a hundred times now...)
> they've all heard about skewers spontaneously unscrewing
> themselves, and a few reports of this happening to
> customers with disc brakes won't stand out as anything
> particularly unusual, barring more data.
>
I have seen this kind of "filtering effect" at work in other
contexts. For instance, years ago I was prescribed a
medication that had a rather disagreeable side effect for
me. I went to my doctor, he consulted his physicians desk
reference, told me, "No one has reported that side effect,"
and suggested, ever so gently, that it was all in my head.
Much later I read an article about the medication that
mentioned that side effect.
I don't think the doctor was at fault, or even the
manufacturer of the medication. I suspect that when the
manufacturer did its initial run of tests, it drew up a list
of side effects that were prevalent to show up in their
trials. Unfortunately, afterwards such a list can function
as a filter excluding other valid reports of side effects.
But even in that case, my doctor did something about the
situation -- switching me to another medication.
Furthermore, I don't think such a filtering effect is at
work here. Let's look at the lawyer from Trek as an example.
I find it hard to believe that a lawyer contacted by the
trade press about this problem would simply write it off as
the usual operator error, particularly after he's informed
that it's confined to disc-brake forks. If he went to one of
the engineers at Trek, he would have been told that this is
a different sort of claim and that it merits further study.
If he's a competent attorney, he would know that it's Trek's
duty to look into it or at the very least, pressure the fork
suppliers to look into it.
I suppose it's possible that industry lawyers are stone cold
stupid, but I'm not sure that matters. The tort system
punishes stupidity as well as venality.
I suspect that the industry is hoping there are no claims
until the problem can be addressed quietly.
Furthermore, given the evidence that's already been brought
to light, I don't think the studies you propose would do any
good. I'm not suggesting such studies would necessarily have
no scientific validity, but I suspect that if an industry
lawyer doesn't think that the opinion of a respected
engineer like Jobst is reason enough to be worried, he's not
going to change his mind because a bunch of guys on usenet
conducted experiments in their garages. Such a study would
have so little credibility (from a lawyer's perspective)
that it would not be a prod to action.