Judge falls from bicycle

I have not been able to find more on this:

http://tinyurl.com/csgfq

Jobst Brandt

It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe
they should have a surgeon general's warning plastered all over stating
"WARNING: failure to use common sense may result in disfigurement". Our
country is in a sad state when even the judiciary isn't free of
litigious *******s. Nobody is willing to accept responsibility for
their own mistakes.

Here's the URL for info on the 2001 Sedona LX:

http://www.giant-bicycles.com/us/030...01&model=10339

Looks like two brakes to me. Maybe he's an amputee.

--
Waiting to see Clarence Thomas endo on his one-brake fixie

wrote in message
...
I have not been able to find more on this:

http://tinyurl.com/csgfq

Not a terribly smart judge. He did not even bother joining the
LBS to avoid removal to federal court. He also has to be asking
for more than $75K to get it removed. -- Jay Beattie.

wrote:
I have not been able to find more on this:

Here's a press release from over two years ago on the accident.

http://www.state.il.us/court/PressRel/2003/062503.pdf

He broke his hip, shoulder and elbow. "He is uncertain what caused the
accident, perhaps a bump or pothole or loose stones on the roadway."
Because of the Boub decision, Kilbride can't sue the municipality for
the lousy condition of the road.

RFM
http://www.cyclelicio.us/

On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin" wrote:

It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe

How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the tyre
and fork, locking the front wheel?

Jasper

"Jasper Janssen" wrote in message
...
On 21 Oct 2005 14:09:21 -0700, "amakyonin" wrote:

It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe

How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the tyre
and fork, locking the front wheel?

That might not be the case. If you look at the component spec, it mentions
"Alloy, Direct pull w/ power control." That power control is likely the
"ABS" crap that some manufacturers (namely, GT) put on comfort bikes because
recreational cyclists don't know how to use the front brake in a smooth
fashion. It's basically a spring in-line with the v-brake cable noodle to
limit the maximum tension between the brake arms, and the brake lever goes
all the way to the handlebar without an appreciable increase in front brake
power.

What may have happened is that the ABS (not the plastic, the anti-lock
thing) unit failed, causing an inability to provide any braking power. If
it was the rear that failed, and the judge was taught from childhood not to
use the front brake because it'll pitch you over the bars instantly, then of
course he would lose control and crash.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

In article .com,
"amakyonin" wrote:

It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.

Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).

--
Ted Bennett

Jasper Janssen writes:

It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike. Maybe

How does a second brake help you when the first on jams between the
tyre and fork, locking the front wheel?

I haven't found a description of the event that even slightly states
what was claimed to have failed other than that the rider had various
serious injuries... and will fully recover. I was only made aware of
the item in:

http://tinyurl.com/csgfq

The other reference offered didn't shed any light on the nature of the
claimed failure, wheels, brakes, or other mechanical cause. It also
appears that the criterion of manufacturers fault is related to the
severity of injury rather than any specific fault in design. The
cases in which I testified (primarily wheels), had no merit and only
two of them went to trial and fell apart in the process, something
plaintiff's lawyers could have known from "discovery" testimony.

I can guess that this case is similar, but then I have only been
involved in wheel related cases in which male riders concocted a
scenario to explain to their friends how they could have been so dumb
as to fall off their bicycles. The stories fit folklore but miss on
technical substance.

Jobst Brandt

"Ted Bennett" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
"amakyonin" wrote:

It's a good thing the manufacturer had safety in mind when they
designed in a redundant second brake on this particular bike.

Which brake is redundant? Seems to me that any bike capable of more
than a walking speed ought to have both wheels braked (and here I should
say that a fixed gear bike's rear wheel is counted as braked).

Just an aside comment: the legal requirement in my state is to have a brake
that skids the rear wheel. No front brake requirement.

--
Phil, Squid-in-Training

I think you should be less judgmental about the Judge, his riding
abilities and his propensity to file litigation, since no one seems to
know how the accident really happened. It's all well and good to love
bicycles, but any impartial observer has to admit that bicycle
manufacturers sometimes do screw up, just as bicycle riders sometimes
do. We will just have to wait for the trial, apparently, to find out
what really happened. In the meantime, it is extremely fatuous to
criticize the Judge, since such criticism is not based on fact.