Bike Biz: Wheel ejection theory goes legal

[Patrick Lamb]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:57:55 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Werehatrack wrote on 08/02/2007 04:22 +0100:
>> Your courts are at variance from those in the US in many instances, I
>> believe. Here, it is not uncommon for the result of a civil suit to
>> be dramatically at variance with the law and/or the facts, due
>> entirely to the effects of the "who has the better lawyer" rule.
>>
>
>That's because we use an expert judge and you use a lay jury to hear the
>case. We reserve the lay jury for the appeal to the House of Lords ;-)

I was going to note that an appeal to expert judges might be
considered preferable, until I remembered the political hacks that
inhabit our (US) Supreme Court.

Pat

Email address works as is.

 

[A Muzi]

>> Werehatrack wrote on 08/02/2007 04:22 +0100:
>>> Your courts are at variance from those in the US in many instances, I
>>> believe. Here, it is not uncommon for the result of a civil suit to
>>> be dramatically at variance with the law and/or the facts, due
>>> entirely to the effects of the "who has the better lawyer" rule.

> Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
>> That's because we use an expert judge and you use a lay jury to hear the
>> case. We reserve the lay jury for the appeal to the House of Lords ;-)

Patrick Lamb wrote:
> I was going to note that an appeal to expert judges might be
> considered preferable, until I remembered the political hacks that
> inhabit our (US) Supreme Court.

Ignoring that gratuitous swipe, the US system does have several expert
courts for specific areas of the law. None for cycling. . . yet!
/ignore
If it's any consolation, large numbers of Americans of all political
stripes think the Supremes are biased against their interests -including
many of the presidents who appointed the waffling creeps.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Tony Raven]

Patrick Lamb wrote on 09/02/2007 03:58 +0100:
>
> I was going to note that an appeal to expert judges might be
> considered preferable, until I remembered the political hacks that
> inhabit our (US) Supreme Court.
>

I remember struggling for how to politely answer a question from a US
judge on "how many milligrams thick" something was.

--
Tony

"...has many omissions and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least
wildly inaccurate..."
Douglas Adams; The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

 

[RonSonic]

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:58:45 -0600, Patrick Lamb <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:57:55 +0000, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>Werehatrack wrote on 08/02/2007 04:22 +0100:
>>> Your courts are at variance from those in the US in many instances, I
>>> believe. Here, it is not uncommon for the result of a civil suit to
>>> be dramatically at variance with the law and/or the facts, due
>>> entirely to the effects of the "who has the better lawyer" rule.
>>>
>>
>>That's because we use an expert judge and you use a lay jury to hear the
>>case. We reserve the lay jury for the appeal to the House of Lords ;-)
>
>I was going to note that an appeal to expert judges might be
>considered preferable, until I remembered the political hacks that
>inhabit our (US) Supreme Court.

We routinely deplore the ethics of our lawyers and the conduct of our
politicians, yet are surprised at the behavior of judges, the one creature that
most completely combines the two.

Ron

 

[Dave Larrington]

In news:[email protected],
A Muzi <[email protected]> tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:

> If it's any consolation, large numbers of Americans of all political
> stripes think the Supremes are biased against their interests
> -including many of the presidents who appointed the waffling creeps.

Must...resist...Temptation...to..insert...Motown...joke...


--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Wood is an excellent material for making trees, but is otherwise
not to be trusted.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
Patrick Lamb <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:57:55 +0000, Tony Raven
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Werehatrack wrote on 08/02/2007 04:22 +0100:
> >> Your courts are at variance from those in the US in many
> >> instances, I believe. Here, it is not uncommon for the result of
> >> a civil suit to be dramatically at variance with the law and/or
> >> the facts, due entirely to the effects of the "who has the better
> >> lawyer" rule.
> >>
> >
> >That's because we use an expert judge and you use a lay jury to hear
> >the case. We reserve the lay jury for the appeal to the House of
> >Lords ;-)
>
> I was going to note that an appeal to expert judges might be
> considered preferable, until I remembered the political hacks that
> inhabit our (US) Supreme Court

Who are disliked by both the liberals and the conservatives. Hmmm.
Maybe the Supreme Court is actually doing its job.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
RonSonic <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 21:58:45 -0600, Patrick Lamb
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 07:57:55 +0000, Tony Raven
> ><[email protected]> wrote:
> >>Werehatrack wrote on 08/02/2007 04:22 +0100:
> >>> Your courts are at variance from those in the US in many
> >>> instances, I believe. Here, it is not uncommon for the result of
> >>> a civil suit to be dramatically at variance with the law and/or
> >>> the facts, due entirely to the effects of the "who has the better
> >>> lawyer" rule.
> >>>
> >>
> >>That's because we use an expert judge and you use a lay jury to
> >>hear the case. We reserve the lay jury for the appeal to the House
> >>of Lords ;-)
> >
> >I was going to note that an appeal to expert judges might be
> >considered preferable, until I remembered the political hacks that
> >inhabit our (US) Supreme Court.
>
> We routinely deplore the ethics of our lawyers and the conduct of our
> politicians, yet are surprised at the behavior of judges, the one
> creature that most completely combines the two.

A judge is wise and just when he agrees with you, and an activist when
he doesn't. I think that the prejudices and behavior of the public are
as much a part of the picture as those of politicians and judges.

 

[Chalo]

jim beam wrote:
>
> in news at 10, chains experience tensile stress, and pedal spindles are
> subject to fatigue loading!

I've broken pedals off before just by pushing them. You?

Problems like disk front wheel ejection are not routine; if they were,
they'd have been corrected during product development. This is
clearly a "corners of the envelope" issue, but that's precisely what
makes it a concern. We've identified the mechanism of failure, and
we've identified examples of failures in the field. The corrective
measures are simple and straightforward. Why not fix the problem?

Most Ford Pintos didn't burn to the ground in rear end collisions,
either. But there was an issue there, and it was addressed.

Chalo

 

[jim beam]

Chalo wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> in news at 10, chains experience tensile stress, and pedal spindles are
>> subject to fatigue loading!
>
> I've broken pedals off before just by pushing them. You?

not brute force - i can't apply the same as you! but i've had a couple
fatigue and snap.

>
> Problems like disk front wheel ejection are not routine; if they were,
> they'd have been corrected during product development. This is
> clearly a "corners of the envelope" issue, but that's precisely what
> makes it a concern. We've identified the mechanism of failure, and
> we've identified examples of failures in the field.

that's debatable. all we've identified is action and reaction - that is
nothing to write home about, just like it's basic physics that if i
press down on my desk with 10lbs force, my desk reacts and presses back
at me with 10lbs force resistance. the loudest chicken littles in this
debate don't seem to grasp basic concepts like this.

> The corrective
> measures are simple and straightforward. Why not fix the problem?

actually, i'm ambivalent on that point - i'm all for innovation and
improvement. what i care about is this storm in a teacup b.s. from
sensation seeking ignoramuses who can't do the math and have no regard
for statistics. seriously, it makes no sense to get the panties in a
bunch about a non-problem, when things like broken cranks are
statistically much more prevalent. [they're not common these days
either, but they're a good deal more common than ejected disk wheels.
by a factor of thousands.] even planes, the most studied and researched
mechanical devices in history, crash much more frequently, but are the
same "disk ejection" fools and attention seekers calling for a
"redesign" so that planes don't actually leave the ground? it might
make more sense.
>
> Most Ford Pintos didn't burn to the ground in rear end collisions,
> either. But there was an issue there, and it was addressed.

the issue there was not that it happened, many cars burn when crashed
badly enough. the problem with the pinto was that it was particularly
bad and particularly vulnerable, that it was a known problem before
production, that "cost/benefit" was performed, then known dangers
covered up and the manufacturer production commenced anyway in full
knowledge of the consequences. that was a specific "management
decision" and names could be named. there's no such thing with bike
forks because there's no proof there's a problem that's distinguishable
from user error, there's no intent to cover up, and there's /definitely/
no bean counter doing the math on recall vs. legal dispute, then
proceeding anyway in knowledge of the consequences. unless there's an
absolute global conspiracy with every manufacturer participating, in
absolute secrecy of course.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
> >
> > in news at 10, chains experience tensile stress, and pedal spindles
> > are subject to fatigue loading!
>
> I've broken pedals off before just by pushing them. You?
>
> Problems like disk front wheel ejection are not routine; if they
> were, they'd have been corrected during product development. This is
> clearly a "corners of the envelope" issue, but that's precisely what
> makes it a concern. We've identified the mechanism of failure, and
> we've identified examples of failures in the field. The corrective
> measures are simple and straightforward. Why not fix the problem?

Because that's jim beam you're responding to, and he remains utterly
opposed to anything Jobst thinks is correct. Jobst could postulate the
theory of gravity and jim would find something to disagree with.

 

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:51:42 -0600, Tim McNamara
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> jim beam wrote:
>> >
>> > in news at 10, chains experience tensile stress, and pedal spindles
>> > are subject to fatigue loading!
>>
>> I've broken pedals off before just by pushing them. You?
>>
>> Problems like disk front wheel ejection are not routine; if they
>> were, they'd have been corrected during product development. This is
>> clearly a "corners of the envelope" issue, but that's precisely what
>> makes it a concern. We've identified the mechanism of failure, and
>> we've identified examples of failures in the field. The corrective
>> measures are simple and straightforward. Why not fix the problem?
>
>Because that's jim beam you're responding to, and he remains utterly
>opposed to anything Jobst thinks is correct. Jobst could postulate the
>theory of gravity and jim would find something to disagree with.

Dear Tim,

http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=mcnamara+beam+jobst&start=0&scoring=d&

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[A Muzi]

Gary Young wrote:
-snip-
> For instance, wheel injection can cause serious injury
-snip-

You had me scared when it was merely wheel _e_ jection.
-shudder-
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 12:51:42 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> jim beam wrote:
> >> >
> >> > in news at 10, chains experience tensile stress, and pedal
> >> > spindles are subject to fatigue loading!
> >>
> >> I've broken pedals off before just by pushing them. You?
> >>
> >> Problems like disk front wheel ejection are not routine; if they
> >> were, they'd have been corrected during product development. This
> >> is clearly a "corners of the envelope" issue, but that's precisely
> >> what makes it a concern. We've identified the mechanism of
> >> failure, and we've identified examples of failures in the field.
> >> The corrective measures are simple and straightforward. Why not
> >> fix the problem?
> >
> >Because that's jim beam you're responding to, and he remains utterly
> >opposed to anything Jobst thinks is correct. Jobst could postulate
> >the theory of gravity and jim would find something to disagree with.
>
> Dear Tim,
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.tech/search?q=mcnamara+beam+jobst&
> start=0&scoring=d&

LOL! Of this I was aware when I wrote my comment. Human foibles in all
of us, eh? 'struth, jim could postulate the theory of gravity and I
would look askance at it simply because it came from him. In my
quasi-defense, I have actually managed to agree with jim on a few
things. When jim says something I think is accurate I make a point of
posting my agreement in the interest of being fair and balanced. jim
would probably think that I don't succeed in that.