# Parents suing Radpower bikes for child's death



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

‘Team Molly’ parents sue Seattle e-bike company over daughter’s death


The parents of a girl who died after an e-bike accident filed a wrongful death lawsuit Monday against the Seattle e-bike company Rad Power Bikes.




www.seattletimes.com





TL;DR version
Parents suing Giro, Radpower for their child's death on ebike because the child got on the back of the bike that had that bench thing that looks like it is for kids, it was piloted by another kid (when Radpower's own documentation notes that bike is for people 18 and over), rides bike up hill that they never would have been able to get up with out the e-assist, then rode the bike back down, crashing when it wobbled, and they couldn't adequately or knowledgably operate the brakes.

Seemingly having nothing to do with it being an ebike except that they could get a >80lbs bike up to the top of a hill. Descending they probably didn't have the hand strength to stop a the huge bike, though I doubt the motor had much to do with that.

I feel for them as accidental death of child must be heartwrench but needing to point blame at someone is never going to make you feel better. As they stated they want people to not have to go through this but if their friends had followed the guidelines in the user manual this would never have happened.

Accidents happen but I sure hope that this lawsuit is thrown out. I mean what is the end result they want? How does a manufacturer make sure people aren't stupid enough to let two middle school kids play around on what is essentially a light motorcycle on the road? What device can guarantee that those kids know how to brake a bike?

Kid was probably wearing a Dicks Sporting/Walmart/Big box store level giro helmet as well when they should have been wearing a motorcycle helmet. 

So sad and stupid.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

I think a lot (most) of people just simply don't realize that some e-bikes on the market have parallels to their combustion counterparts. Meaning they can reach dangerous speeds and climb steep grades that you otherwise couldn't. Is there some blame in that?.. I don't know, It seems like a bit of a gray area. Especially the marketing.


----------



## Muggsly (Nov 9, 2005)

It is a tragedy and I do not wish the death of a child on anyone but I do often wonder if people feel that the death of a family member equals easy monetary windfall. 

Then of course there is "Molly’s father, a lawyer " Which makes me think of this quote 
"To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail'


----------



## robj20 (Apr 24, 2011)

WHALENARD said:


> I think a lot (most) of people just simply don't realize that some e-bikes on the market have parallels to their combustion counterparts. Meaning they can reach dangerous speeds and climb steep grades that you otherwise couldn't. Is there some blame in that?.. I don't know, It seems like a bit of a gray area. Especially the marketing.


100% on the parents if you ask me.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

robj20 said:


> 100% on the parents if you ask me.


I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you. I'm just suggesting there's probably a pretty large cross section of parents that would have a hard time differentiating between an e-bike and a regular bike or understand their capabilities.


----------



## mikesee (Aug 25, 2003)

Sorry for their loss, but their case seems to have few merits other than grubbing for cash.

One hopes that the judge sees through the ruse.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

rockcrusher said:


> I feel for them as accidental death of child must be heartwrench but needing to point blame at someone is never going to make you feel better.


As a lawyer, but not one that does injury lawsuits, I tend not to judge people in terms of "personal responsibility" and that kind of thing. Certainly when the plaintiff is saddled with a lifetime of huge medical bills.

But this is so, so true and I wish more people understood it more deeply. A lawsuit is going to prolong the grief and make you relive it over and over for a period of years, most likely. And, the defense is going to raise issues about responsible operation and supervision that will be agonizing and humiliating. And, I really don't think monetary compensation or even a finding of responsibility is going to bring much closure to the situation.

Her father, this guy, Jonathan Steinsapir | KWIKH Attorneys should know that, but he litigates business and IP cases, where there really isn't a lot of human misery. He certainly doesn't need the money.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

In other news....

Man sues gas can company after being severely burned by pouring gas on campfire
Woman sues gun company after being shot by robber
Man sues bacon company after having heart attack
Woman sues cigarette company after getting lung cancer

You get it. Personal responsibility, including keeping your children away from operable motor vehicles, is apparently just too much to ask. Hope the judge throws it out with extreme prejudice.


----------



## teleken (Jul 22, 2005)

The bike company and Giro's insurance will likely make an out of court cash offer. Do they have any liability? It's doubtful given the available information but the last thing they want is to go in front a jury.
I work for an insurance company a customer I spoke to 2 weeks has a rental property his tenant hired a cleaning lady who fell and was seriously injured. He had no idea they even hired her but we still made a $150,000 settlement to her (and her attorney of course). The $$ will never bring their daughter back but the days of taking the loss when you screw up is long over.


----------



## ocnLogan (Aug 15, 2018)

I have some nephews who live in a really, really affluent area. And pretty much all of the kids there (ages 8-14) go all over the place on ebikes, and escooters that their parents have provided for them. My nephew was telling me that some of his friends have put 2000 miles on their ebikes since they got them this year just in the neighborhood.

Kids are going to be kids. And I've seen those bikes... those racks are rather enticing to sit on, so I'm not surprised this happened. And honestly, what the kid who died did is EXACTLY the sort of stuff that I could see my nephews doing. I should probably share this with them as a reality check (even though their parents have kept them on muscle bikes, they are clearly around them often).

That said, clearly the outcome of the crash is awful. Sincere condolences to the family.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

rockcrusher said:


> ‘Team Molly’ parents sue Seattle e-bike company over daughter’s death
> 
> 
> The parents of a girl who died after an e-bike accident filed a wrongful death lawsuit Monday against the Seattle e-bike company Rad Power Bikes.
> ...


They show it being used as a seat for a kid on their website. 



















I've said it several times before, the average person's concept of speed is based on riding in a car, 20mph is very safe and very slow. They have no concept of what happens when you crash at that speed without the protection a car offers. 

I agree that it is a ridiculous lawsuit, but "On page 49 of the 57-page owner’s manual for the model, a warning says that “the RadRunner is designed for use by persons 18 years old and older.” seems awfully late and hidden to state that.


----------



## norcalbike (Dec 17, 2004)

Parents are grifters


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

BadgerOne said:


> In other news....
> 
> Woman sues cigarette company after getting lung cancer


That's a legit one though (or was - it probably wouldn't be today). The dangers of getting cancer were obscured and downplayed for decades so the tobacco companies WERE responsible. Now that we all know the risks, yes, new smokers have more responsibility.

In some ways, the dangers of e-bikes (and regular bicycles) are also downplayed. People aren't given any extra training on riding them. They aren't in need of a license. They aren't always told of the laws surrounding them and where they are allowed to ride (a passenger on any e-bike is straight up illegal here, even if it has 2 real seats).

This will be interesting to see the outcome.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

How can this be anyones fault other than the parents and/or the children for operating something they arent allowed to operate?


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

JSGN said:


> How can this be anyones fault other than the parents and/or the children for operating something they arent allowed to operate?


It is very easy to dismiss things like this, because most/all of us here fully understand the risks of biking and put that all on ourselves. You need to try and put yourself in the position of an idiot (not saying these people are idiots, but you have to frame it as if they were).

I have no judgement, I am curious to see what happens though.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

The only part of this that could have any hint of merit is a claim around quick release and disc brakes, but even then I've ridden lift serviced DH parks on a bike with QRs and I just made sure they were properly tightened at the start if the day.

I'm surprised they're not suing the family that owned the bike for letting their daughter ride on it!

One thing I have noticed about Huffy bikes having seen a few recently is that they all have 'safety stickers' on the top tube reminding the rider to wear a helmet. I don't recall my sons' Nukeproofs coming with those.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

On another theme does this highlight the fallacy in lumping pedal-assist only bikes in the same genre as bikes with a throttle that requires no pedal input to move?


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

smashysmashy said:


> It is very easy to dismiss things like this, because most/all of us here fully understand the risks of biking and put that all on ourselves. You need to try and put yourself in the position of an idiot (not saying these people are idiots, but you have to frame it as if they were).
> 
> I have no judgement, I am curious to see what happens though.


I understand that but these types of law suits where its in 99.9% of cases your own fault for being a moron, you cannot simply sue companies like this in Europe. This is something that is only possible in USA.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Even in the event of payoff without accepting liability here the impact to Radpower and potentially less to Giro will be more expensive bikes or potentially loss of employees or product line and certainly revamped literature and dealer education. 

Which is a lot to do when you consider that they did nothing wrong. I mean lawn darts game killed exactly three children but went away completely and while it might make sense to many people that you should always supervise your children when they are throwing darts, etc you always have to take into consideration that lowest common denominator and when it comes to danger kids are that factor for sure. Unsupervised children do stupid things. It is the reason that refrigerator doors don't have latches on them, the reason we don't have lawn darts, the reason that many municipalities have requirements for helmets on bikes and 5' fences and closing and locking gates around private pools. 

Sadly children will die doing stupid things, it is how they work.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

JSGN said:


> I understand that but these types of law suits where its in 99.9% of cases your own fault for being a moron, you cannot simply sue companies like this in Europe. This is something that is only possible in USA.


It isn't true in this case, but a lot of times it's not really the parents/family suing another party, it's their insurance company trying to avoid paying out medical bills.


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

Why sue Giro? Helmet not intended for motor vehicle use?
They will never know if the bike had been assembled improperly, or modified (or just plain tinkered with).
It would be a poor legal precedent any way you slice it. They might as well sue the owner of the bike (they let an 11 y.o. ride a bike intended for 18+? ...with a passenger? Hardly the bike mfr's fault) while they are at it, but I bet they don't have $300M.
My condolences to the family.

-F


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

chiefsilverback said:


> It isn't true in this case, but a lot of times it's not really the parents/family suing another party, it's their insurance company trying to avoid paying out medical bills.


So its the insurance company suing the manufacturer of a product to get out of the need to pay the medical bills? This isnt a thing in Sweden either. People/Companies cant just sue when they feel like there is a possibility to get out of paying.

My deepest condolences to the family, either way its an incredible tragic accident.


----------



## BicyclesOnMain (Feb 27, 2021)

I think about is the dozens of 20" fat tire RadPower mopeds I have ridden, and how unstable they are when you go over 20mph. I'm not surprised it got speed wobbles, they are poorly designed. A standard bicycle or e-bike based on bicycle geometry doesn't get speed wobbles


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

JSGN said:


> So its the insurance company suing the manufacturer of a product to get out of the need to pay the medical bills? This isnt a thing in Sweden either. People/Companies cant just sue when they feel like there is a possibility to get out of paying.
> 
> My deepest condolences to the family, either way its an incredible tragic accident.


That's because you have a proper healthcare system, and not the for profit mess that we have here!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I'll bet dollars to donuts that the health insurance company is the one who is pulling the strings of this lawsuit. Anytime "bicycle crash" is involved with the cause of an injury or death, an insurance company is going to be sniffing around to see if someone can be sued to recoup what they've paid out.

I think this one is far from clear that Radpower and Giro are primarily responsible. That said, do they shoulder some responsibility? Maybe. Burying the statement about the bike being only for adults deep in the manual is kinda wishy washy CYA material. Giro makes helmets to the US specs. There are no US specs for "ebike helmets" but someone who's been thinking about this kind of stuff a bit will probably realize that a motorcycle helmet or a downhill-rated helmet will be safer WRT the greater speeds ebikes can attain. But there's not really any guidance from the certifying agencies on this sort of thing. I don't think Giro has any blame here. They made a bicycle helmet according to the requirements placed on bicycle helmets. Whose responsibility should it be to ensure that safe helmets for faster ebike speeds are available to customers?


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Ultimately they should be suing their friends for letting their child operate a vehicle they weren't certified to use, resulting the death of another child. 

Which of course i am being facetious but they are ultimately the ones to take blame here for causing this.


----------



## wfl3 (Dec 30, 2003)

smashysmashy said:


> *That's a legit one though (or was - it probably wouldn't be today). The dangers of getting cancer were obscured and downplayed for decades so the tobacco companies WERE responsible. Now that we all know the risks, yes, new smokers have more responsibility.*
> 
> In some ways, the dangers of e-bikes (and regular bicycles) are also downplayed. People aren't given any extra training on riding them. They aren't in need of a license. They aren't always told of the laws surrounding them and where they are allowed to ride (a passenger on any e-bike is straight up illegal here, even if it has 2 real seats).
> 
> This will be interesting to see the outcome.


The term "coffin nails" originated around 1900. The dangers were known for a longgggggggg time, whether people wanted to hear it or not is another story.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

chiefsilverback said:


> That's because you have a proper healthcare system, and not the for profit mess that we have here!


It might be but it feels like the responsibility of the individual is taken away completely here? And put on the engineers of the company that made the product to think for the individual using the product? Im interested in how there is room in the law to file a lawsuit towards a company when its down to negligence of the individual using the product?


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

wfl3 said:


> The term "coffin nails" originated around 1900. The dangers were known for a longgggggggg time, whether people wanted to hear it or not is another story.


That's still 200+ years of prior usage. Point is, you could reasonable blame the tobacco companies for their part. (in the same way the hammer will come down on vaping).

E-bikes are low speed motorcycles, but no one wants to treat them as such.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Harold said:


> Burying the statement about the bike being only for adults deep in the manual is kinda wishy washy CYA material


Do you need to put on an adult sized bike that it's not for children? Could Rad sue the owners for buying the bike and giving it to child?




> Giro makes helmets to the US specs. There are no US specs for "ebike helmets


Any kid can hit 20MPH on a mild hill when they get their head down, their ass up, and pedal like their life depends on it!


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JSGN said:


> So its the insurance company suing the manufacturer of a product to get out of the need to pay the medical bills? This isnt a thing in Sweden either. People/Companies cant just sue when they feel like there is a possibility to get out of paying.
> 
> My deepest condolences to the family, either way its an incredible tragic accident.


Usually isn't the insurance company itself that files the lawsuit. Rather, they have sneaky ways of keeping their names out of it by pressuring the family to file the suit.



BicyclesOnMain said:


> I think about is the dozens of 20" fat tire RadPower mopeds I have ridden, and how unstable they are when you go over 20mph. I'm not surprised it got speed wobbles, they are poorly designed. A standard bicycle or e-bike based on bicycle geometry doesn't get speed wobbles


I think of those tiny-wheeled e-scooters, also, when I think about commonly available vehicles that people crash and injure themselves frequently on.

I got speed wobbles once on my Salsa Vaya. I'm not sure all of the factors that played into why it got them, but it's never had that issue since then. With the greater speeds of ebikes, I think ebike mfrs need to pay closer attention to the possibility of speed wobbles. The causes are definitely really complex, but the results can be catastrophic.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

Harold said:


> Usually isn't the insurance company itself that files the lawsuit. Rather, they have sneaky ways of keeping their names out of it by pressuring the family to file the suit.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Must be a nightmare to be a company owner in USA when the smallest missuse of your product can cost you hundreds of millions of dollars.


----------



## 93EXCivic (Mar 12, 2018)

A few things. Could it be a bs lawsuit? Maybe. Could there have been something wrong with e-bike? Maybe. Ultimately I think it is ridiculous to rush to judgement on what this case is. Sometimes lawsuits are needed to make companies change their ways or pay for damages they have done.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JSGN said:


> Must be a nightmare to be a company owner in USA when the smallest missuse of your product can cost you hundreds of millions of dollars.


they like to go after government agencies who manage public trails, too. also the volunteers who build them. it's rare for anyone to win one of those cases, but out of court insurance settlements are common because those are often cheaper than paying a lawyer to defend you in open court.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

Harold said:


> they like to go after government agencies who manage public trails, too. also the volunteers who build them. it's rare for anyone to win one of those cases, but out of court insurance settlements are common because those are often cheaper than paying a lawyer to defend you in open court.


I feel this happens just because there is room in the law to sue whenever you feel like you can get some money.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

JSGN said:


> I feel this happens just because there is room in the law to sue whenever you feel like you can get some money.


sometimes negligence happens and results in bad stuff. I do feel like those who are negligent should be penalized for such. but we get lawsuits filed because someone _might_ have been negligent (but nobody is really sure of that) because really the goal is to get an insurance settlement. so you're not entirely wrong about that.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

93EXCivic said:


> A few things. Could it be a bs lawsuit? Maybe. Could there have been something wrong with e-bike? Maybe. Ultimately I think it is ridiculous to rush to judgement on what this case is. Sometimes lawsuits are needed to make companies change their ways or pay for damages they have done.


I mean I have no idea what happened but the account from the article and presumably the lawsuit state:


> Molly and an 11-year-old friend climbed aboard a RadRunner e-bike that belonged to the friend’s 13-year-old sister, the lawsuit says. The friend was operating the bike as Molly rode atop a flat rack over its back wheel, a feature that “invites a passenger to sit in tandem,” according to the complaint.
> 
> 
> The two girls rode to the top of a hill that they most likely would not have been able to climb without the bike’s electric boost, the lawsuit says. After the friend turned the bike around to head back down the hill, the bike “began to rapidly pick up speed, and it began shaking,” according to the complaint. The friend “applied the rear brake, but the bicycle did not slow. She then pulled the front brake, but the bike did not stop, and the front wheel began to wobble.”
> ...


So an 11 year old was operating this. A 12 year was riding shot gun. They rode up a hill then descended. It wobbled but then the noted the qr/disc brake thing but there was no note that the front wheel separated. 

I have had a speed wobble and it was terrifying. My 11 year old cannot grab the brake levers on my mountain bike to operate them. If this was the 20" rad power bike it has cable actuated discs. I got my kids hydraulics because they couldn't actuate cable powered brakes well, with their hydros and the lever adjusted to match their hand size, they can stop safely and quickly as needed. If these kids were descending and had a speed wobble, couldn't grab the brakes well, which were cable discs on a 60-80lbs bike that was moving at even 20 mph this was sadly just an accident that had to do with velocity and mass.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

JSGN said:


> I understand that but these types of law suits where its in 99.9% of cases your own fault for being a moron, you cannot simply sue companies like this in Europe. This is something that is only possible in USA.


Except in Europe, there tend to be FAR more controls on everything, from driving a car and the licensing/registration requirements to the safety standards and so on...


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

rockcrusher said:


> ‘Team Molly’ parents sue Seattle e-bike company over daughter’s death
> 
> 
> The parents of a girl who died after an e-bike accident filed a wrongful death lawsuit Monday against the Seattle e-bike company Rad Power Bikes.
> ...


These civil lawsuits usually go towards what would be reasonably expected. Does this have a "key" that can be controlled by the owner/operator? If not, that may leave some open ground for liability, in that it's basically open-season with no controls for someone to come along and operate said machine. Besides being able avoid getting a car stolen, a key limits who can operate the car and is issued to the owner. I'm not saying I agree with it...but it would seem like a case could be made if there aren't controls on access/operation.

These e-things though are an incredible amount of "power" that is easily abused. I hate to bring it up like this, but it's like flooding the population with any other substance or device that can cause harm. While some can use them responsibly, there are not enough controls to ensure that amongst the population. Bikes by themselves without assist are fairly "powerful" in this regard, but generally not damaging enough to the users and other people. When we add electric motors and batteries, we start going in that direction pretty fast.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

If an 18-year-old was out to helm resulting in the same crash and fatality, would it make a difference?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

93EXCivic said:


> A few things. Could it be a bs lawsuit? Maybe. Could there have been something wrong with e-bike?


Surely they would have to prove it was the fault of the manufacturer, and not poor maintenance on the part of the owner. The article mentions disc brakes and QR, but it didn't say that the front wheel actually detached from the bike. Two scared kids, bolt upright on a heavy bike that's rapidly accelerating down a hill wrenching around, bike starts to wobble, bang on the ground.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

Harold said:


> sometimes negligence happens and results in bad stuff. I do feel like those who are negligent should be penalized for such. but we get lawsuits filed because someone _might_ have been negligent (but nobody is really sure of that) because really the goal is to get an insurance settlement. so you're not entirely wrong about that.


Its frightening for me who isnt used to stuff like this to just read about it.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

Jayem said:


> Except in Europe, there tend to be FAR more controls on everything, from driving a car and the licensing/registration requirements to the safety standards and so on...


Well yes. Isnt that a good thing?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

WHALENARD said:


> If an 18-year-old was out to helm resulting in the same crash and fatality, would it make a difference?


Did the manufacturer add reasonable controls to ensure that the owner can control who operates the machine?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

JSGN said:


> Well yes. Isnt that a good thing?


Well it's the opposite of freedom. It's not good or bad, it's both.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

JSGN said:


> Its frightening for me who isnt used to stuff like this to just read about it.


I've started a small bike repair business, first thing I did was take out a $2,000,000 liability insurance policy!


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

Jayem said:


> Well it's the opposite of freedom. It's not good or bad, it's both.


Well in that sense you are correct, I guess it just feels different from my point of view since im used to what it is like here.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Jayem said:


> Well it's the opposite of freedom. It's not good or bad, it's both.


Not sure it's necessarily the opposite of freedom. It's just prioritizing one type of freedom over another.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

chiefsilverback said:


> I've started a small bike repair business, first thing I did was take out a $2,000,000 liability insurance policy!


Damn. What does that cost in monthly? Yearly?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

JSGN said:


> Must be a nightmare to be a company owner in USA when the smallest missuse of your product can cost you hundreds of millions of dollars.


A huge part of why the healthcare costs you hear people whining about constantly are so high.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

JSGN said:


> Damn. What does that cost in monthly? Yearly?


$50/month.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

"a RadRunner e-bike that belonged to the friend’s 13-year-old sister, the lawsuit says."

I wonder if the dealer knew it was being purchased for a 13 year old. Seems like this could open them and the parents to being sued.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

chazpat said:


> "a RadRunner e-bike that belonged to the friend’s 13-year-old sister, the lawsuit says."
> 
> I wonder if the dealer knew it was being purchased for a 13 year old. Seems like this could open them and the parents to being sued.


I'd say, for sure. The insurance is going to for the pockets, but the jury _should_ determine the % of liability with whomever is being sued.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

Jayem said:


> I'd say, for sure. The insurance is going to for the pockets, but the jury _should_ determine the % of liability with whomever is being sued.


Different states have different "contributory" and "comparative" negligence schemes. In some states, the jury apportions liability even among "participants" that aren't parties to the suit. In others, they just consider whether the plaintiff's contribution was greater than 50%, and that absolves the defendants.

It can get really, really complicated, really fast.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Harold said:


> they like to go after government agencies who manage public trails, too. also the volunteers who build them. it's rare for anyone to win one of those cases, but out of court insurance settlements are common because those are often cheaper than paying a lawyer to defend you in open court.


This is why all our trails are "illegal". So the city can say "hey we got nothing to do with that". But then at the same time they don't actively remove the trails, so i have no idea how well that defense works.

Bike companies have insurance that no joke accounts for $50-$100+ of your bike's price. But this is just for bike failures, and this situation is something very different.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Jayem said:


> These civil lawsuits usually go towards what would be reasonably expected. Does this have a "key" that can be controlled by the owner/operator? If not, that may leave some open ground for liability, in that it's basically open-season with no controls for someone to come along and operate said machine. Besides being able avoid getting a car stolen, a key limits who can operate the car and is issued to the owner. I'm not saying I agree with it...but it would seem like a case could be made if there aren't controls on access/operation.
> 
> These e-things though are an incredible amount of "power" that is easily abused. I hate to bring it up like this, but it's like flooding the population with any other substance or device that can cause harm. While some can use them responsibly, there are not enough controls to ensure that amongst the population. Bikes by themselves without assist are fairly "powerful" in this regard, but generally not damaging enough to the users and other people. When we add electric motors and batteries, we start going in that direction pretty fast.


I didn't see this before. I totally agree. Some means of ensuring that when the dealer hands you the key they also go over the rules. Not sure if this legally would work but if you give your car keys to your kid to drive your car you will be seen at least partially liable I assume.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

smashysmashy said:


> Bike companies have insurance that no joke accounts for $50-$100+ of your bike's price. But this is just for bike failures, and this situation is something very different.


Several years ago, I was in my LBS looking for some thing or another, and the shop employee told me that a lawyer came in and bought up ALL of their old OEM takeoff road bike forks for destructive testing. A local road rider had crashed on a descent just outside town and ended up in a coma due to his injuries, and the lawyer was trying to figure out if there was a widespread manufacturing defect in his bike (a Trek) that caused his crash. AFAIK, no lawsuit was ever actually filed, so the lawyer probably found bupkis, but anytime someone crashes their bike and suffers expensive injuries, the lawyers gonna come sniffing.

It also appears that the rider ended up passing away after a couple years in a coma.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

smashysmashy said:


> This is why all our trails are "illegal". So the city can say "hey we got nothing to do with that". But then at the same time they don't actively remove the trails, so i have no idea how well that defense works.
> 
> Bike companies have insurance that no joke accounts for $50-$100+ of your bike's price. But this is just for bike failures, and this situation is something very different.


Back in the 90's I helped build a series of trails in Tucson. They were on state trust land and you needed a permit to ride on it but it was loosely enforced so the majority of users using the trails didn't get the permit. 

Eventually a child injured themselves very badly on the trails (Paraplegic or partial quad as I recall) and the parents proceeded to try to sue the state. The state asked to see their state trust use permit, they didn't have one, and the state charged them with trespassing. The suit was dismissed due to the trespassing, no damages were collected and the people were left with their legal fees and no leg to stand on (no pun intended).

Making them illegal and not enforcing it except occasionally is all they need to do. The liability falls on the trespasser for breaking the rules first.


----------



## BicyclesOnMain (Feb 27, 2021)

Harold said:


> I got speed wobbles once on my Salsa Vaya. I'm not sure all of the factors that played into why it got them, but it's never had that issue since then. With the greater speeds of ebikes, I think ebike mfrs need to pay closer attention to the possibility of speed wobbles. The causes are definitely really complex, but the results can be catastrophic.


I don't think the speed matters much. I've hit 55mph on a tandem, and 65mph on a bicycle. The weight isn't an issue so much either, I can ride my R1200GS at 60mph through a creek bed full of loose rocks and gravel. It's all about geometry. I wonder if any other commenters have ridden the garbage that Radpower produces. Both my mechanic and I are proficient mountainbikers and motorcycle enthusiasts, but when we test ride the Radpower 20" that come to be repaired we always comment on how terrifying the handling is. I understand that they are popular and plenty of people ride them without issue, but they lack the self-correcting geometry built into modern bicycles. It seems there's nothing to do with the QR and brakes, just the fact it's a toy marketed as a bicycle. When I started seeing the Radpower bikes come with a bench seat and pegs I was shocked. This lawsuit was inevitable.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

TwiceHorn said:


> Different states have different "contributory" and "comparative" negligence schemes. In some states, the jury apportions liability even among "participants" that aren't parties to the suit. In others, they just consider whether the plaintiff's contribution was greater than 50%, and that absolves the defendants.
> 
> It can get really, really complicated, really fast.


Yeah, that's what I was alluding to, I wanted to keep it simple, but I'm absolutely aware that in some states they can appropriate liability to participants not in the suit.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

BicyclesOnMain said:


> I don't think the speed matters much. I've hit 55mph on a tandem, and 65mph on a bicycle. The weight isn't an issue so much either, I can ride my R1200GS at 60mph through a creek bed full of loose rocks and gravel. It's all about geometry. I wonder if any other commenters have ridden the garbage that Radpower produces. Both my mechanic and I are proficient mountainbikers and motorcycle enthusiasts, but when we test ride the Radpower 20" that come to be repaired we always comment on how terrifying the handling is. I understand that they are popular and plenty of people ride them without issue, but they lack the self-correcting geometry built into modern bicycles. It seems there's nothing to do with the QR and brakes, just the fact it's a toy marketed as a bicycle. When I started seeing the Radpower bikes come with a bench seat and pegs I was shocked. This lawsuit was inevitable.


I am not sure Rad Power has a peg bike. Their models are mostly mobility bikes vs. toy bikes. (Electric Bikes For All Lifestyles | Award-winning Ebikes)

There are certainly a lot of peg and bench seat bikes but I don't think Rad Power is that company.

Certainly a 20" wheel will be more skittish than a large wheel, similar to the Orange Velo Neutron, I can totally see that.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

JSGN said:


> Must be a nightmare to be a company owner in USA when the smallest missuse of your product can cost you hundreds of millions of dollars.


I carried $5M in malpractice insurance when I worked in orthopedics. I never had to use it. 

The parents should've got the kid a proper dirt bike like every 12 year old I knew growing up.


----------



## matadorCE (Jun 26, 2013)

So you have these bikes marketed as glorified toys, parents not paying enough attention to what their kids are doing, and kids being kids? Tragic and sad that a child died from this accident, but does this particular bike has enough stopping power and stability to bomb down a hill? The marketing material with kids sitting in the back bench while all riders are wearing bicycle helmets are damning IMO. The current Radrunner owner's manual says it's to be operated by someone 16 and older, which again is this a toy or a motor vehicle? I can definitely see the design and components on the bike being called into question.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

rockcrusher said:


> Back in the 90's I helped build a series of trails in Tucson. They were on state trust land and you needed a permit to ride on it but it was loosely enforced so the majority of users using the trails didn't get the permit.
> 
> Eventually a child injured themselves very badly on the trails (Paraplegic or partial quad as I recall) and the parents proceeded to try to sue the state. The state asked to see their state trust use permit, they didn't have one, and the state charged them with trespassing. The suit was dismissed due to the trespassing, no damages were collected and the people were left with their legal fees and no leg to stand on (no pun intended).
> 
> Making them illegal and not enforcing it except occasionally is all they need to do. The liability falls on the trespasser for breaking the rules first.


It varies some from state to state, but generally speaking, states and counties have "sovereign immunity" that means they can't be sued. In some states, that extends all the way down to cities and municipalities.

Some states "waive" that immunity through a "tort claims act" (federal is similar), where, for injury claims, you must make a demand on the state and their liability is limited to some sum like $100k, and only certain types of claims (in Texas, arising from state operation of a motor vehicle, for example) may be permitted in this system, and there's no court available or no jury trial.

Some states, including, to my understanding, New York, pretty much entirely waive sovereign immunity so you can sue them for any damn thing.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

milehi said:


> I carried $5M in malpractice insurance when I worked in orthopedics. I never had to use it.
> 
> The parents should've got the kid a proper dirt bike like every 12 year old I knew growing up.


Yikes thats alot and lucky you didnt have to, and yes. A proper dirt bike instead of a half assed commuter with a throttle controlled emotor.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

milehi said:


> The parents should've got the kid a proper dirt bike like every 12 year old I knew growing up.



The state where I live (Massachusetts) has the most restrictive ATV laws in the country due to a tragic accident where some 8 year old kids took one of their parent's ATVs out without permission, crashed it, and one of them sadly ended up passing away. His family went on the legal warpath about it and put the onus on everyone else besides themselves. 

Now we have "Sean's Law", where no kid under 10 is allowed to operate one under any circumstance, under 14 only under parental supervision and all the way up to age 17, they are limited to tiny little 90cc toy versions. It's crazy.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> The state where I live (Massachusetts) has the most restrictive ATV laws in the country due to a tragic accident where some 8 year old kids took one of their parent's ATVs out without permission, crashed it, and one of them sadly ended up passing away. His family went on the legal warpath about it and put the onus on everyone else besides themselves.
> 
> Now we have "Sean's Law", where no kid under 10 is allowed to operate one under any circumstance, under 14 only under parental supervision and all the way up to age 17, they are limited to tiny little 90cc toy versions. It's crazy.


That should have been the understood law in the first place, but often if its not on the actual street, they are "fair game" and even if there are laws no one cares.

Like this e-bike in question and many like it are NOT legal here, but people still buy them and ride them. Takes someone to get hurt before anyone notices.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

slapheadmofo said:


> The state where I live (Massachusetts) has the most restrictive ATV laws in the country due to a tragic accident where some 8 year old kids took one of their parent's ATVs out without permission, crashed it, and one of them sadly ended up passing away. His family went on the legal warpath about it and put the onus on everyone else besides themselves.
> 
> Now we have "Sean's Law", where no kid under 10 is allowed to operate one under any circumstance, under 14 only under parental supervision and all the way up to age 17, they are limited to tiny little 90cc toy versions. It's crazy.


Crazy. My brother and I were racing motocross at 12 on KX 80s. That came to a halt after the bikes were impounded from leading the cops on a chase in the hills. They had to call a chopper to catch us. It was back to bikes after a month long grounding and my dad selling the dirt bikes. I loved growing up in the 80s.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

Well the Radpower is a bicycle, not a motorized vehicle. This has been beat up in other blogs on this site. Those that own e-bikes insist that they are just bicycles and should be allowed all of the access and privileges of other bike riders. The Department of the interior has classified these as non-motorized vehicle.

In another article, it stated that both parents of the deceased are attorneys. They approached Radpower stating they would like to keep this out of court. Does this indicate they wanted a quick payday and Radpower said no? They then filed the lawsuits.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

Grew up on dirt bikes too.
At least two kids I can think of died on skateboards one township over when I was a kid, and I believe one on a bicycle. We just had an entire bike park here shut down because of a guy that ran into a sign and paralyzed himself. Likewise a race series was successfully sued because a lady fell over a log, this was on national forest. Legislating to the least common denominator is exactly what our forefathers had in mind.


----------



## Blue Dot Trail (May 30, 2018)

Muggsly said:


> It is a tragedy and I do not wish the death of a child on anyone but I do often wonder if people feel that the death of a family member equals easy monetary windfall.
> 
> Then of course there is "Molly’s father, a lawyer " Which makes me think of this quote
> "To a man with a hammer, everything looks like a nail'


What other recourse do these parents have? CEO’s of companies don’t go to jail. The only thing they understand is profit and compensation.


----------



## shwndh (Nov 20, 2004)

chazpat said:


> They show it being used as a seat for a kid on their website.
> 
> View attachment 1993886
> 
> ...


Definitely the parent fault but looks like Radpower neglected to clearly point out the dangers and will be paying out on this one. This is the issue with all eBike marketing. None of them really educate or warn customers about how dangerous they can be. We are all used to cars and motorcycles but eBikes are a new thing. If you're going to sell them you have to CYA and make education part of the purchase process. They may get sued on this one.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

Blue Dot Trail said:


> What other recourse do these parents have? CEO’s of companies don’t go to jail. The only thing they understand is profit and compensation.


The parents can admit that they were responsible instead of seeing dollar signs.


----------



## Blue Dot Trail (May 30, 2018)

jimglassford said:


> The parents can admit that they were responsible instead of seeing dollar signs.


Corporations don’t make shoddy, defective products? There’s hundreds of recalls every year.


----------



## Dogbrain (Mar 4, 2008)

jimglassford said:


> The parents can admit that they were responsible instead of seeing dollar signs.


Everyone assumes these kinds of lawsuits are a money grab, but in a lot of cases I think it's just the only socially acceptable method of lashing out. Or maybe they just want the company to change the product to avoid this sort of thing in the future.
We'd all like to think that we will act rationally and take responsibility, but the data show that we most often act on extreme emotions. My assumption is that the folks who scream the loudest about responsibility are probably the ones who will have a really good explanation for why their situation is different and the lawsuit is justified when something happens to them.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

chazpat said:


> "a RadRunner e-bike that belonged to the friend’s 13-year-old sister, the lawsuit says."
> 
> I wonder if the dealer knew it was being purchased for a 13 year old. Seems like this could open them and the parents to being sued.


That may put all liability on the parents...especially if documentation is clear about the age for operation.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

milehi said:


> I carried $5M in malpractice insurance when I worked in orthopedics. I never had to use it.
> 
> The parents should've got the kid a proper dirt bike like every 12 year old I knew growing up.


Did the org, hospital or clinic provide their own insurance?


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Jayem said:


> Did the org, hospital or clinic provide their own insurance?


Yes. The hospital has their own insurance which covers the staff. Surgeons carry their own. A typical payout would be 25K if say gauze was left inside a surgery site but I've never seen that happen. Every single thing is counted upon closing.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

milehi said:


> Yes. The hospital has their own insurance which covers the staff. Surgeons carry their own. A typical payout would be 25K if say gauze was left inside a surgery site but I've never seen that happen. Every single thing is counted upon closing.


We always hear the medical horrors, but forget that those are really rare.

My hospital doctor actually went personally searching for me after he realised I was very sick and should never have been let home.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

smashysmashy said:


> We always hear the medical horrors, but forget that those are really rare.
> 
> My hospital doctor actually went personally searching for me after he realised I was very sick and should never have been let home.


That happened to me too. I had surgery on my elbow from a crash and the tourniquet was too tight inducing a blood clot. I was put on blood thinners but the dose was too high. The doc searched me out and I stayed a weekend in the hospital until everything leveled out and the clot was gone. The look on his face was dire. I was told I could've bled out from my orifices.


----------



## Drew H. (Oct 6, 2017)

> Without being pedaled, the company’s e-bikes can go 20 mph.


Well that would make it a motorcycle/moped, wouldn't it?


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

milehi said:


> That happened to me too. I had surgery on my elbow from a crash and the tourniquet was too tight inducing a blood clot. I was put on blood thinners but the dose was too high. The doc searched me out and I stayed a weekend in the hospital until everything leveled out and the clot was gone. The look on his face was dire. I was told I could've bled out from my orifices.


Not sure how over dramatic mine was, but he implied I would not have survived the night. Said he was going to have the cops smash my door down. Luckily I was actually still in the hospital getting some timmy's.


----------



## Drew H. (Oct 6, 2017)

> it can help you carry cargo, passengers, and even your morning joe.


Right on the front page of their site it says "carry passengers" so there's that....


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Drew H. said:


> Well that would make it a motorcycle/moped, wouldn't it?


It should be, the laws are all over the place.

_here_ they just go by weight. Under 100lbs or so, its a "bike", over it's a "scooter".
Most of the differentiation is on where they are allowed to run, and if they are allowed a passenger.
Both limited to 32kph, both need pedals, both can have a throttle. Both limited to 500w.

But so many stores sell totally law breaking e bikes. Lots that go 50kp with a throttle and 1-2kw motors.

Its not easy to even try to enforce this stuff either. The rules are just bad right now, and this is why this particular case will be interesting. Should they even have been sold that bike?


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

Rad Power Bikes faces wrongful-death suit


LOS ANGELES (BRAIN) — The parents of a 12-year-old girl who later died from injuries suffered while riding as a passenger on a Rad Power Bike in 2021 filed a wrongful death suit Monday against the Seattle brand and helmet-maker Giro Sport Design.




www.bicycleretailer.com





Three allegations against Rad Power are noted in this article.

*That Rad Power actually promotes dangerous use in ad-copy, but the actual warning against-which is buried in small print at the end of a thick manual* - "_The lawsuit cites Rad Power Bikes' positive website reviews from adults who have written about buying Rad e-Bikes for their children. The suit also says the RadRunner operating manual states the model is for use by those 18 and over. 'But this caution occurs in small print on Page 49 of a 57-page manual.' The suit goes on to say Rad Power doesn't do anything else to warn customers about the risk to kids riding its bikes._"
*That Rad Power's fork dropouts and quick-releases are inherently dangerous for use with disk brakes* - "_Design defects, the lawsuit alleges, include using disc brakes in conjunction with quick-release skewers, which it states can loosen during hard braking and cause the wheel to wobble and shake. 'Even a single hard brake can cause this to happen, and it did happen here,' according to the lawsuit. 'Molly's friend was likely unable to stop the bike and lost control of the bike, because her hard pull on the front brake caused the wheel's quick release mechanism to unthread, loosening the wheel.'_"
*That Rad Power's fork geometry is dangerous* - "_Another defect in the original RadRunner, according to the lawsuit, was its low trail number, the horizontal distance from where the front wheel touches the ground to where the steering axis intersects the ground. The lawsuit states the RadRunner's trail number was unusually low for road use and made the bike unstable at high speeds. The lawsuit did not reveal the number. The suit notes the RadRunner 2 model increased the trail number._"
Although I think the parents and the girls bear significant responsibility... it seems to me, a non-lawyering armchair legal enthusiast (meaning Joe Schmoe carrying zero weight about this), they do have a case against Rad Power.

"_Giro is named in the suit because the Steinsapirs say the helmet Molly was wearing was defective. The suit says the helmet was supposed to absorb the crash impact, but it cracked and did not protect her from the brain injury that ultimately killed her._"

But I think the case against Giro is weak, as no safety equipment assures absolute protection. The only way they have a case is if they can prove that the helmet model does not actually meet the certifications it claims to meet.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

DtEW said:


> Rad Power Bikes faces wrongful-death suit
> 
> 
> LOS ANGELES (BRAIN) — The parents of a 12-year-old girl who later died from injuries suffered while riding as a passenger on a Rad Power Bike in 2021 filed a wrongful death suit Monday against the Seattle brand and helmet-maker Giro Sport Design.
> ...


Well, it would appear that they engaged a bicycle "expert" to identify defects and causes of the crash before filing suit. And it appears that they may have had someone knowledgeable examine the helmet, as well.

That is indicative of something other than an hysterical money-grab.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

DtEW said:


> *That Rad Power's fork dropouts and quick-releases are inherently dangerous for use with disk brakes* - "_Design defects, the lawsuit alleges, include using disc brakes in conjunction with quick-release skewers, which it states can loosen during hard braking and cause the wheel to wobble and shake. 'Even a single hard brake can cause this to happen, and it did happen here,' according to the lawsuit. 'Molly's friend was likely unable to stop the bike and lost control of the bike, because her hard pull on the front brake caused the wheel's quick release mechanism to unthread, loosening the wheel.'_"


Forks are supposed to have "lawyer tabs", so that if the quick release opens, the wheel cannot fall out. Disk brakes are I think irrelevant - actuating a disc brake holds the wheel into the fork. The wobble, seems... not sure. I mean I've ridden a bike in a race where the QR undid on a berm downhill and I had a disc. Wheel just kinda jammed and I stopped without crashing, pissing off the person behind me.

I think on the technicalities of those safety features they probably do not have a case.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

DtEW said:


> Rad Power Bikes faces wrongful-death suit
> 
> 
> LOS ANGELES (BRAIN) — The parents of a 12-year-old girl who later died from injuries suffered while riding as a passenger on a Rad Power Bike in 2021 filed a wrongful death suit Monday against the Seattle brand and helmet-maker Giro Sport Design.
> ...


The overarching premise behind the case appears to be that the ebike let them get to the top of the hill and they wouldn’t have been able to get there without it, and it was descending the same steep hill that they ended up crashing. I’m sure kids push their non ebikes to the tops of steep hills all the time and then go fast back down!

As for the helmet, they would surely have to prove that the kid had never dropped it or even crashed whilst wearing it, and that she was wearing it properly when this crash occurred. How many times do you see kids (and adults) with an ill fitting helmet halfway back on their head?


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

DtEW said:


> "_Giro is named in the suit because the Steinsapirs say the helmet Molly was wearing was defective. The suit says the helmet was supposed to absorb the crash impact, but it cracked and did not protect her from the brain injury that ultimately killed her._"
> 
> But I think the case against Giro is weak, as no safety equipment assures absolute protection. The only way they have a case is if they can prove that the helmet model does not actually meet the certifications it claims to meet.


Cracking is probably part of the energy absorption process. That’s why you replace it after a crash, as I did with mine in June . . . concussion and I have no memory of the afternoon. Helmets don’t come with a guarantee against head injury. As you say, it all hinges on certification test results. Passing is passing. And of course nobody knows whether it was a good fit or was even worn backwards.


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

chiefsilverback said:


> How many times do you see kids (and adults) with an ill fitting helmet halfway back on their head?


I see this way more often than I'd like. I saw someone on the bike path with their helmet on backwards. They thought the adjustment dial was supposed to be in the front.


----------



## Flyer (Jan 25, 2004)

I bet they settle this out of court. Cheaper to pay a million than drag this out in the media and ruin the reputation of the company.


----------



## Grodyman (Sep 29, 2016)

chiefsilverback said:


> That's because you have a proper healthcare system, and not the for profit mess that we have here!


Yawn









The Truth About SwedenCare | Klaus Bernpaintner


As a Swede currently living in the United States, with actual experience of Swedencare, I must reply to the delusions propagated by professor Robert H.




mises.org


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

So me, being me, I pulled the complaint (you all collectively owe me $21, the discounted rate as I have LA Sup Ct Account). The complaint alleges causes of action for:

_(1) Survival Action for Product Liability: Product Negligence;
(2) Wrongful Death (Negligence);
(3) Strict Product Liability;
(4) Breach of Express Warranty;
(5) Breach of Implied Warranty._

The basic liability essence of the complaint is:

1_8. As further alleged below, Rad Power Bikes bears responsibility for the death of Molly Steinsapir due to their intentional and knowingly inappropriate marketing of e-bikes to children, failing to adequately warn about the dangers of children operating e-bikes, and due to the design defects in the RadRunner power bike, each of which was a substantial factor in causing the accident and Molly Steinsapir’s death. Further, Rad Bikes’ conduct was malicious, fraudulent, and oppressive, warranting punitive damages.

19.The other Defendants in this case, Giro Sport Design, Inc., Bell Sports, Inc., and Vista Outdoor, Inc., manufactured, marketed and sold a bicycle helmet that was also defective. The purpose of a bicycle helmet is to absorb the impact of a crash, and the Giro brand helmet Molly was wearing cracked, but did not protect her from the brain injury that ultimately killed her. These Defendants’ actions were also a substantial factor in causing Molly Steinsapir’s death.

The basic factual essence of the complaint is:

34. On Sunday, January 31, 2021, twelve-year-old Molly Steinsapir went for a ride on a Rad Powerbike with her friend and neighbor, eleven-year-old Emerson (“Eme”) Green. The Rad Powerbike was a RadRunner with serial number VR1H20V2870 (“Subject Powerbike”). The Subject Powerbike had recently been gifted to Emerson’s thirteen-year-old sister. On that sunny morning, Emerson drove the bike and Molly rode behind her. Both girls wore helmets. Molly’s helmet was a GIRO Vasona Bike Helmet model GH 158, with serial number Y3808482 (“Subject Helmet”). 

35. Emerson and Molly began their ride at Emerson’s house in Pacific Palisades, California, which is up the street from the Steinsapir residence. They rode the Subject Powerbike to the end of Enchanted Way, a nearby street that slopes upward and ends in a cul-de-sac at the top of the hill. Once they reached the top and the end of Enchanted Way, Emerson turned the Subject Powerbike around to ride it back down the hill. 

36. At all times mentioned herein, Emerson and Molly were operating the Subject Powerbike as intended and as advertised by Rad Power Bikes. As the two girls rode the Subject Powerbike downhill on Enchanted Way, Emerson noticed that the Subject Powerbike began to rapidly pick up speed, and it began shaking. She applied the rear brake, but the bicycle did not slow. She then pulled the front brake, but the bike did not stop, and the front wheel began to wobble and shaking, causing to lose control of the Subject Powerbike. The bike crashed at approximately 955 Enchanted Way, Pacific Palisades, CA 90272, where the hill began to bottom out.

37.Emerson and Molly were thrown from the bike onto the ground. In shock and bleeding from multiple contusions, Emerson tried unsuccessfully to wake up her best friend. She ran to several homes on Enchanted Way and rang doorbells, desperately trying to find help. No one was at home. Emerson managed to flag down a woman who was driving on Enchanted Way, and who dialed 911 and waited at the scene while Emerson went home to get her parents. Emerson’s parents made it to the scene of the accident first. When Molly’s frantic parents, Plaintiffs, arrived a few minutes later, Molly was wearing her helmet, face-down on the black pavement, unconscious and not moving. The paramedics rushed Molly to Ronald Reagan Medical Center in Westwood, California, where the doctors performed major brain surgery that afternoon and evening. 

38.Molly had several more brain surgeries over the course of the next week. However, she never regained consciousness. On February 15, 2021, Molly was declared dead by the UCLA doctors.

48.Specifically, Rad designed and manufactured the RadRunner electric-motorized bikes, including the Subject Powerbike, with at least two design defects. First, Rad chose to use disc brakes in conjunction with a quick-release mechanism for detaching the front wheel. This configuration has been a known safety hazard in the industry for at least a decade, even when used with non-electronic bikes. This is because the front disc brakes have calipers behind the fork blade, and when the rider pulls hard at the front brakes, it generates a powerful force and friction that causes the quick-release mechanism to unthread, loosening the wheel and causing it to wobble and shake, and in some cases, causing the wheel to come off entirely mid-ride. Even one hard pull at the brake, especially during a steep downhill ride such as here, is enough to cause these two components to interact with each other in an unsafe way, causing a loss of control, which of course causes injuries and deaths. This is a known safety hazard in the industry, and Rad chose not to use the safer alternative mechanism for releasing the wheel, called a “through axle” mechanism. Through axles are universally used in connection with disc brakes in motorcycles for this reason. However, bicycle manufacturers continue to use these unsafe quick-release mechanisms with front disc brakes in lower-end bicycles, because the quick-release mechanism is cheaper to manufacture than the through-axle mechanism. Rad knew or should have known that this was an unsafe and defective design, but Rad chose to implement it anyway to increase its profits. 

49.This design defect - the combination of the quick-release mechanism and the front disc brakes - was a substantial factor in causing this accident and Molly Steinsapir’s death. After the accident, the rear brakes of the Subject Powerbike were worn thin and the front wheel was loose and wobbly. The Subject Powerbike was purchased new approximately a month before the accident. It was assembled by Velofix on January 7, 2021, and therefore had been in the Greens’ possession for just over three weeks on the date of the accident. The brakes were intact, and the wheel was not loose when Emerson and Molly began their ride on January 31, 2021. They rode to the top of the hill on Enchanted Way, riding up a steep incline they only achieved in the first place due to the Subject Powerbike’s powerful motor. On the way down, Emerson tried to control their descent by using the rear brakes, but that only succeeded in wearing the brakes out. As the Subject Powerbike continued to pick up speed, Emerson pulled hard on the front brake, but because of the design defect of the quick-release mechanism used in connection with the front disc brakes, her hard braking caused the quick release mechanism to unthread. The front wheel loosened and became wobbly, the bike began to shake, and Emerson lost control of its steering. 

50.A second design defect in the original RadRunner, which was another deliberate design choice by Rad, was the “trail” of the bike’s design. A bike’s trail is the horizontal distance from where the front wheel touches the ground to where the steering axis intersects the ground. The number that results from these geometric calculations, the trail number, affects the bike’s handling. The RadRunner had a trail of 53, which was unusually low for its expected use. This low trail made it unstable at high speeds – such as the high speeds a rider would reach descending a steep hill. Perhaps recognizing this, Rad’s later RadRunner 2 model corrected this defect, increasing the trail number to place it in a more normal range. This design defect was also a substantial factor in causing the accident and Molly’s death because it added to the instability of the bike and the difficulty Emerson had controlling it on the steep, fast descent.

51.Additionally, Rad Power Bikes failed to provide reasonable instructions or warnings of the dangers and safety hazards associated with foreseeable use of the RadRunner, including the Subject Powerbike, by children under 18, and of the dangers and safety hazards associated with foreseeable use of the rear seat. Although Rad may claim, based on the smallprint “warning” on page 49 of 57 of the manual, that the RadRunner is intended to be ridden by people over 18, that warning is entirely inadequate. First, not all buyers actually receive the manual. Second, riders are not limited to buyers and will foreseeably include friends and family. Third, it appears to be intentionally buried toward the end of a lengthy manual, and written in small print, so that buyers and riders alike are unlikely ever to see it. Notably, there are no warnings on the RadRunner itself, nor on the Subject Powerbike, that it is to be ridden only by persons 18 or older. There were no such warnings on the website. In fact, the website’s images and reviews section actively market the RadRunner to child riders. Therefore, use of the RadRunner, including the Subject Powerbike, by children, was entirely foreseeable – and planned for – by Rad Power Bikes, and they profited and continue to profit by their intentional marketing of their bikes to children. Yet the RadRunner, including the Subject Powerbike, are not safe for children to ride, as Rad’s own manual admits. E-bikes, particularly the RadRunner, have a powerful motor that allow it to ascend – and therefore, descend from - heights that a child could not reach on a standard bike. Indeed, that is one of the main marketing pitches for Rad Power Bikes: that it allows people to reach places they otherwise could not. Yet the motor on the RadRunner, including the Subject Powerbike, is extremely powerful and is more akin to a scooter, ATV, or even a motorcycle, all of which are only safe for use by adults with fully developed bodies and reflexes. Another entirely foreseeable use of the RadRunner, including the Subject Powerbike, is the use of the rear space behind the rider as a seat for a passenger riding in tandem. The metal platform looks like a seat, and pictures of Rad’s website show passengers – often children - riding in that position. Rad does sell a special “kit” that adds additional seating parts to the frame of the rear seat; however, nowhere does Rad warn that the rear seat should only be used as a seat if the kit is installed. There are no warnings on the RadRunner and were no warnings on the Subject Powerbike itself, e.g., that that space should not be used as a seat or should only be used as a seat if the seat kit is installed. Yet, as this accident demonstrated, the rear seat is not safe because in the event of a crash, the rear tandem passenger has no opportunity to brace or hold on to the bike and is much more likely to be forcibly ejected and injured in the event of a crash.

57.The Subject Helmet sustained damage in the January 31, 2021 accident described herein. The Subject Helmet impacted the ground and cracked when Molly Steinsapir hit the ground after being thrown from the Subject Powerbike. Yet it failed to cushion the blow for Molly or protect her brain from severe injury. 

58.Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege, that at all times relevant herein, the Subject Helmet was defective and improperly designed to protect purchasers and end users, such as Molly Steinsapir, from brain injuries in the event of a bicycle crash. Specifically, the design and manufacture of the Subject Helmet was defective in that it failed to transfer the impact of the crash away from Molly Steinsapir’s brain and into the material of the helmet. 

59.Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege, that at all times relevant herein, Defendants Giro, Bell, Vista and DOES 51-100, inclusive, failed to provide any safety warnings to purchasers such as the Plaintiffs or to end users and members of the general public like Molly Steinsapir regarding use of the Subject Helmet, or information for its safe operation and use.

60.Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege, that at all times relevant herein, the Giro Vasona bicycle helmets, including the Subject Helmet, have defectively designed components, whereby the outer and inner shell of the Subject Helmet fail to protect the wearer from brain injury in the event of a bicycle crash, which is the ordinary purpose bicycle helmets must serve. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege, that at all times relevant herein, the Giro Vasona bicycle helmets, including the Subject Helmet, failed to comply with federal, state, and local government regulations by the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission, at 16 C.F.R. § 1203, et seq., for the safety of bicycle helmets._


Just my two cents as a civil litigator. There is enough there to get past a demurrer and motion for summary judgment, there are triable issues of fact. Based on the complaint alone, and having no other facts, it appears there is a good chance there is liablity on the part of Rad Power. Giro looks less certain, they didn't advertise or represent the helmet would prevent brain injury, nor is it physically possible to design a helmet that will.

It is sad for the parents. It is sad for the friend. But it is also sad that people purchase bottom of the barrel product that are designed as cheaply as possible, to the point of possibly being dangerous, but then cannot accept they had the information easily available to them to ascertain if what they were buying was a quality product or not. Likewise, it appears the operator was not trained in how to properly operate the vehicle, either a preoperative check (i.e. check the releases are tight), operate at a speed that is it can be controlled, or how to properly utilize both brakes.

I will leave you with some heartfelt excerpts from the father's letter to the bike company:

_At this point, I should mention that I am a lawyer, and a litigator to boot. At the same time, however, I am not writing to you in the capacity of lawyer—as they say, a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. I am writing as a father and as a human being. If my wife and I ever felt we needed to pursue litigation, we would retain counsel. That is something we have not done to date, however, and it something we hope not to have to do. We both have extensive litigation experience; we know how costly (monetarily but much more so from an emotional perspective) and wasteful the modern civil litigation machine can be. At this particular time, we want to better understand what happened, why, and how future tragedies like this can be avoided. We have read profiles about you personally and your company generally. It seems that you are genuinely trying to make the world a better place by reducing carbon emissions and making transportation more affordable for people. Based on what we have read about you, we believe (or hope) that you would want to make sure that the products you are creating are also used safely such that deadly accidents, of the type that befell our daughter, do not happen to other families. 

We send this letter sincerely. As noted, Kaye and I are both lawyers and we understand how wasteful litigation can be. As lawyers, we also understand that your own lawyers may have concerns about you and others at Rad talking to us. I would be happy to speak with your lawyers, very preliminarily, about a discussion and the parameters of it. The above said, however, we want to talk primarily to you and others involved in the actual creation, sales, and marketing of these products, and not primarily with lawyers who are focused solely on minimizing legal exposure and litigation risk. We urge you to reach out to us and seek to have a human conversation and not a lawyerly one. That said, and somewhat ironically given the previous points, must stress that our investigation into the facts and circumstances of Molly’s accident is far from complete, and nothing in this letter is intended to waive any of our potential rights or remedies, all of which are reserved. Indeed, the concerns we note above are simply the concerns that occur to us as laypersons who have not consulted a single expert in this field. _


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

Grodyman said:


> Yawn
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is this opinion article in a right-libertarian leaning publication supposed to prove anything? The guy doesn’t even have citations lol


----------



## Grodyman (Sep 29, 2016)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Is this opinion article in a right-libertarian leaning publication supposed to prove anything? The guy doesn’t even have citations lol


lol


----------



## mlx john (Mar 22, 2010)

wfl3 said:


> The term "coffin nails" originated around 1900. The dangers were known for a longgggggggg time, whether people wanted to hear it or not is another story.


----------



## jannmayer (10 mo ago)

Cary said:


> _50.A second design defect in the original RadRunner, which was another deliberate design choice by Rad, was the “trail” of the bike’s design. A bike’s trail is the horizontal distance from where the front wheel touches the ground to where the steering axis intersects the ground. The number that results from these geometric calculations, the trail number, affects the bike’s handling. The RadRunner had a trail of 53, which was unusually low for its expected use. This low trail made it unstable at high speeds – such as the high speeds a rider would reach descending a steep hill. Perhaps recognizing this, Rad’s later RadRunner 2 model corrected this defect, increasing the trail number to place it in a more normal range. This design defect was also a substantial factor in causing the accident and Molly’s death because it added to the instability of the bike and the difficulty Emerson had controlling it on the steep, fast descent._


53 mm trail is a bit less than many race bikes, and less than half that of many mountain bikes. (The Specialized Tarmac ranges from about 60 to 52 mm as the size increases.) That is a much faster steering response than most people are used to, especially with a heavy bike. However, race bikes are perfectly stable at speeds far higher than what a Rad bike can reach. I'm not sure this could lead to "instability" although the tours and weight distribution are so different from a road bike it probably isn't a good comparison. 

They cited worn rear pads as the reason the brakes wouldn't work. I'm curious as to how much the manual talked about the need to adjust mechanical disc brakes as the pads wear. While 3 weeks isn't a long time, a heavy bike ridden at high speeds in a hilly neighborhood and mainly naked with the rear could likely wear a set of pads down pretty quick. 

These bikes really do make it easy for an inexperienced rider to hit high speeds, and that doesn't go well with adolescent judgement. There are lots of them in my neighborhood and I see some pretty dumb things on them - ignoring stop signs, three kids on a bike, helmets unbuckled or dangling from the handlebars.... It's great that kids can get around more easily and don't need to be driven everywhere, but I think many of these bikes are too much power too soon. 

Thank you for posting this, it sheds a lot more light on this sad situation. As a parent, I can't imagine what it would be like to go through this.


----------



## Crayefish (Apr 4, 2021)

Evolution 1 - 0 Humans


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

Has anyone ever had a QR come loose with a disc brake? I haven't and haven't heard of it. If it were to happen it's got to be a combination of operator error and and junk equipment.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> Is this opinion article in a right-libertarian leaning publication supposed to prove anything? The guy doesn’t even have citations lol


Nah, he is somewhat correct. Swedish healthcare is "free" as its part of taxes yes. CT-scans and the expensive stuff is free, medication is heavily discounted. Even open heart surgery is free but there is a risk as he says you will get tossed around between experts and people not getting help before its too late if you are unlucky. The system is way beyond perfect and people die because of it but many people wouldnt be able to afford health care if they had to pay it themselves and you can always have a private health insurance here aswell.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

JSGN said:


> Nah, he is somewhat correct. Swedish healthcare is "free" as its part of taxes yes. CT-scans and the expensive stuff is free, medication is heavily discounted. Even open heart surgery is free but there is a risk as he says you will get tossed around between experts and people not getting help before its too late if you are unlucky. The system is way beyond perfect and people die because of it but many people wouldnt be able to afford health care if they had to pay it themselves and you can always have a private health insurance here aswell.


I had xrays in Iceland after a crash that costs $30 less than my ER co pay here would've cost and I have great insurance.


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

milehi said:


> Has anyone ever had a QR come loose with a disc brake? I haven't and haven't heard of it. If it were to happen it's got to be a combination of operator error and and junk equipment.


I believed that it happened to James Annan (a famous climate scientist) and his wife on their road tandem, which led to discussion and debate on rec.bicycles.tech that turned into a passion project with concurrence of his conclusions by Jobst Brandt. This occurred about 20 years ago. I believe the equipment was high-end, involving a custom fork and Hope brakes. It seems like the lawsuit's wording is heavily-based on this particular theory of QR-loosening.

Whether this theory they’re wielding against Rad Power is truly reflective of the accident that claimed Molly’s life is hard-to-say.

A particularly notable aspect of this theory is that the problem is worsened when you have a greater wheel-diameter-to-rotor-diameter ratio… that is to say the problem is worst when you have a big wheel and a small rotor. The Rad Runner has wheels with an effective diameter considerably smaller (20” x 3.3” tires) than most adult road/mountain bikes, and has 180mm rotors all around, which actually means it’s less susceptible to this theory of failure than most adult bikes.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

DtEW said:


> I believed that it happened to James Annan (a famous climate scientist) and his wife on their road tandem, which led to discussion and debate on rec.bicycles.tech that turned into a passion project with concurrence of his conclusions by Jobst Brandt. This occurred about 20 years ago. I believe the equipment was high-end, involving a custom fork and Hope brakes. It seems like the lawsuit's wording is heavily-based on this particular theory of QR-loosening.


I see a lot of riders with QRs not fully closed or oriented the wrong way like a rear QR with the lever in a forward position waiting to be forced open. Back in the day I'd use a bolt on rear hub and a Salsa Flip Lock QR up front. I have bolt on skewers on my wife's bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Blue Dot Trail said:


> What other recourse do these parents have? CEO’s of companies don’t go to jail. The only thing they understand is profit and compensation.


It's not the CEOs fault some kid crashed a bike that their parents shouldn't have let them ride in the first place.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> It's not the CEOs fault some kid crashed a bike that their parents shouldn't have let them ride in the first place.


Imagine what the American legal landscape would look like if corporations were allowed to sue their customers for implied defamation because the customer was negligent or just too stupid to properly use their product.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

Cary said:


> So me, being me, I pulled the complaint (you all collectively owe me $21, the discounted rate as I have LA Sup Ct Account). The complaint alleges causes of action for:
> 
> _(1) Survival Action for Product Liability: Product Negligence;
> (2) Wrongful Death (Negligence);
> ...


Thanks for this and good analysis, I agree.

As I mentioned earlier, it appears that they have engaged some sort of bicycle expert to analyze the crash and the bike and those are certainly plausible theories about what went wrong. But whether those things actually caused the crash is a different question. But all a jury has to do is decide that one of those things more likely than not caused or contributed to the crash and death. We'll never know how the bike was maintained or ridden, most likely, so it does seem that Radpower might have some exposure here.

I also agree that the helmet claim is more tenuous. It appears that they are working backward from the fact that the helmet "failed" and failed to prevent traumatic brain injury and hoping to find some evidence of substandard design or manufacture in discovery.

From the excerpt from the letter, it might appear that the lawdog parents are more or at least interested in forcing some design changes, as much as anything.

One thing that occurs to me though. The parents may be willing to undertake the emotional burden of litigation over the death of their child, and I suppose that is their choice to make. But if this goes very far in litigation, the girl Emerson is going to be subjected to some pretty traumatic stuff as a witness. I am relatively certain that she will be handled "with care" by the attorneys because no one wants to see a child "beaten up" in depositions or on the witness stand. But the parents probably need to consider that pretty strongly.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

smashysmashy said:


> That should have been the understood law in the first place,


No, it shouldn't have, and it shouldn't be now.
Why shouldn't my kid be allowed to ride whatever we deem fit just because some little kids did something dumb while their parents weren't supervising them?
The law wouldn't have prevented this accident, nor will it prevent other's like it, nor does it do anything but punish and restrict people who haven't done anything wrong for no good reason.


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

That giro mips helmet is a decent BIKE helmet. Begs the question though - should motor cycle helmets be required for e-“bikes”?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

BadgerOne said:


> Imagine what the American legal landscape would look like if corporations were allowed to sue their customers for implied defamation because the customer was negligent or just too stupid to properly use their product.


American culture now is that "those who can" are responsible for every problem "those who can't" may ever run into.
It's a bunch of Harrison Bergeron BS.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Bassmantweed said:


> That giro mips helmet is a decent BIKE helmet. Begs the question though - should motor cycle helmets be required for e-“bikes”?


The answer is 'no'.


----------



## Bigwheel (Jan 12, 2004)

milehi said:


> Has anyone ever had a QR come loose with a disc brake? I haven't and haven't heard of it. If it were to happen it's got to be a combination of operator error and and junk equipment.


The only incidents I have seen/heard of in years of bicycling of this happening have been user error in not understanding how the QR mechanism operates or just plain forgetting to activate it when heading off for a ride say after getting it off the rack like my wife did years ago. She was fine going up the long hill climb but once it leveled out and she went to unweight the bike at a cattle guard the wheel came off and she went into the cattle guard carrying a decent scar on her leg to this day, but she still rides daily.

On another forum the speculation that the front wheel had parted way was also raised and a similar amount of discourse followed. However even though there is this as evidently part of the law suit:

*That Rad Power's fork dropouts and quick-releases are inherently dangerous for use with disk brakes* - "_Design defects, the lawsuit alleges, include using disc brakes in conjunction with quick-release skewers, which it states can loosen during hard braking and cause the wheel to wobble and shake. 'Even a single hard brake can cause this to happen, and it did happen here,' according to the lawsuit. 'Molly's friend was likely unable to stop the bike and lost control of the bike, because her hard pull on the front brake caused the wheel's quick release mechanism to unthread, loosening the wheel.'_"

There is no real indication that the wheel coming loose was the cause of the accident that I have seen backed up by witnesses of the accident? Bikes on Main was the first on this thread to point out the obvious that the Rad mini type bikes handle like **** due to their goofy geo and shopping cart wheels especially at speed. Put an 11 yr old with puny arms and unskilled as a bike rider in control with some weight on the back and as indicated you have an accident waiting to happen. Bottom line is that if you make bikes that look like kids bikes kids will ride them. 

Other than the fact that the motor facilitated them getting to the top of the hill the two girls could have easily pushed a similar non-motorized bike to the top and had the same thing happen on the way back down.


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

slapheadmofo said:


> The answer is 'no'.


thats one opinion for sure.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

JSGN said:


> Nah, he is somewhat correct. Swedish healthcare is "free" as its part of taxes yes. CT-scans and the expensive stuff is free, medication is heavily discounted. Even open heart surgery is free but there is a risk as he says you will get tossed around between experts and people not getting help before its too late if you are unlucky. The system is way beyond perfect and people die because of it but many people wouldnt be able to afford health care if they had to pay it themselves and you can always have a private health insurance here aswell.


I don’t think anyone is under the impression that universal healthcare comes from anywhere but taxes. My comment was directed at his attempted “gotcha” with an opinion article from a questionable source with no citations.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> My comment was directed at his attempted “gotcha” with an opinion article from a questionable source with no citations.


This coming from you.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> American culture now is that "those who can" are responsible for every problem "those who can't" may ever run into.
> It's a bunch of Harrison Bergeron BS.


Well, in this particular case, the parents would seem to be those who can. I am guessing that they are already multimillionaires.

A corollary to the American concept of freedom from burdensome regulations, which is what you refer to in post 107, I believe, is free access to the courts so that individuals can impose "situation specific" regulation.

Other free societies may choose to have more comprehensive and burdensome regulations and also limit access to the courts for addressing specific situations, which may cause "self-regulation" by the liable party.

Neither system is "wrong," just a different set of priorities and preferences.

What probably is wrong, though, is to advocate for freedom from regulations while also limiting access to the courts. It's at least inconsistent. And I will stop there before this goes from a policy discussion into a political one.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Bassmantweed said:


> thats one opinion for sure.


It's a silly and useless as a law requiring bicycle helmets.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> I don’t think anyone is under the impression that universal healthcare comes from anywhere but taxes. My comment was directed at his attempted “gotcha” with an opinion article from a questionable source with no citations.


Roger dodger! All good! I missunderstood then. Not native so some stuff fly above my head.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

TwiceHorn said:


> Well, in this particular case, the parents would seem to be those who can. I am guessing that they are already multimillionaires.


Just because someone has money doesn't mean they're smart.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

BadgerOne said:


> *Woman sues gun company after being shot by robber
> Woman sues cigarette company after getting lung cancer*


Well in both of these cases, the product was being used as intended by the manufacturer.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

milehi said:


> Has anyone ever had a QR come loose with a disc brake? I haven't and haven't heard of it. If it were to happen it's got to be a combination of operator error and and junk equipment.


as i mentioned earlier, yes, in a race. nothing bad happened - granted i wasn't a 6 year old


----------



## Bassmantweed (Nov 10, 2019)

slapheadmofo said:


> It's a silly and useless as a law requiring bicycle helmets.


Certainly another opinion.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Just because someone has money doesn't mean they're smart.


True enough, but Dad at least seems to be a pretty capable lawyer. Which does not necessarily mean he's smart in any absolute sense.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

slapheadmofo said:


> The answer is 'no'.


For e bikes in the heavy class here, they are already required.
Should a throttle bike bein in that class is the more valid question I think. I don't really have an answer for that.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Cary said:


> They rode the Subject Powerbike to the end of Enchanted Way, a nearby street that slopes upward and ends in a cul-de-sac at the top of the hill.


Being curious I just looked the street up and it has a 20% slope just before the area where the suit says the crash happened. 65lbs bike + 150lbs+ rider and passenger freewheeling down a 20% hill, sadly we now know what the outcome is! If other roads around there are equally as steep its no wonder the rear pads had been worn through in three weeks!


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

JSGN said:


> Roger dodger! All good! I missunderstood then. Not native so some stuff fly above my head.


These articles are often slanted in the "see, x countries healthcare isn't perfect so we should have none" vein. They get old real fast.

Back on topic
There's a number of views on freedom and responsibility. Like laws on helmets, what my kids are allowed to rise, etc, but they don't really apply here.

What is going to matter here is if the bike was sold and advertised in a way that implied a usage that is provably unsafe - or even outright illegal (like passengers).

I personally don't think they will get anywhere with the QR thing, or giro though.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

My condolences to the parents of these tragedy. I'm of the opinion that this lawsuit is fueled by emotion and not logic. I give the parents a pass as I know all too well what happens to common sense when a loved one loses their life. Regardless of cause. 

Their only hope is to have friends and family to support them and help them through this horrible devastation. This E-Bike craze is still in it's infancy. 

A lot of rules and regulations are being written and changed as to the requirements on the use and the legality of them. We have local trail ordnance's that don't allow them at all regardless of classification.


----------



## mrpizza (Jun 2, 2013)

JSGN said:


> Damn. What does that cost in monthly? Yearly?


My wife and I carry a $1M umbrella policy on top of all our other insurance just in case. I have the max coverage on my auto also. We do not own a business, just carry the umbrella because "what if." The umbrella kicks in if our auto or homeowners limits get maxed out. I think its $150 yearly.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

mrpizza said:


> My wife and I carry a $1M umbrella policy on top of all our other insurance just in case. I have the max coverage on my auto also. We do not own a business, just carry the umbrella because "what if." The umbrella kicks in if our auto or homeowners limits get maxed out. I think its $150 yearly.


That's a smart thing to do.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

BicyclesOnMain said:


> I don't think the speed matters much. I've hit 55mph on a tandem, and 65mph on a bicycle. The weight isn't an issue so much either, I can ride my R1200GS at 60mph through a creek bed full of loose rocks and gravel. It's all about geometry. I wonder if any other commenters have ridden the garbage that Radpower produces. Both my mechanic and I are proficient mountainbikers and motorcycle enthusiasts, but when we test ride the Radpower 20" that come to be repaired we always comment on how terrifying the handling is. I understand that they are popular and plenty of people ride them without issue, but they lack the self-correcting geometry built into modern bicycles. It seems there's nothing to do with the QR and brakes, just the fact it's a toy marketed as a bicycle. When I started seeing the Radpower bikes come with a bench seat and pegs I was shocked. This lawsuit was inevitable.


Speed and weight do matter. Speed wobbles are a possibility for a lot of bikes, but only under certain speed combos, weight distributions, and a few other factors. A poorly designed bicycle as you describe is going to have problems at a much lower speed threshold.


----------



## plummet (Jul 8, 2005)

Sad, but at the same time unsurprising. 

E bikes give people the ability to go a lot faster than they have the skill to go.

I see it all the time on the walkways.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Sometimes an accident is an accident. Regrettable and often avoidable but still an accident.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

milehi said:


> Has anyone ever had a QR come loose with a disc brake? I haven't and haven't heard of it. If it were to happen it's got to be a combination of operator error and and junk equipment.


Yeah, the lawyer tabs were for the idiots that did not clamp the QR closed, they simply turned the nut until “tight”, which without the cam being closed, is pretty worthless. Then the tabs come into play.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

plummet said:


> Sad, but at the same time unsurprising.
> 
> E bikes give people the ability to go a lot faster than they have the skill to go.
> 
> I see it all the time on the walkways.


I don't think the 'e' had anything to do with this crash other than the fact that all in there was over 100kg accelerating uncontrolled down a 20% hill!


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Also death wobble is a known possibility in the motorcycle world. Not enough weight distributed on the front tire can be a cause. Upper body strength to fight the wobble helps and 11 year old probably didn't have that. braking forces usually increases the death wobble. Crashing on the apex of the hill where their momentum is still moving downwards and slams then harder into the ground. Just a bad series of events.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

This is not a speed wobble, this is a wobble from the wheel being loose and rattling around. Completely different things.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

Everyone is basing the cause of the crash on the expert hired by a lawyer? Really? In litigation, experts charge by the hour to say whatever the plaintiff and defend what them to say.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Bassmantweed said:


> Certainly another opinion.


I mean, what good is a law that won't be enforced or followed?

My state has a helmet law for children on bicycles under 12. 
Practically no one even knows it exists, the people who don't care enough to make their kids wear helmets to begin with definitely won't follow it, and there is no 'helmet patrol' going around and giving citations out. It's pointless.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> It's pointless.


When it comes to preventing or reducing injuries, it probably is. But when it comes to assigning responsibility after the fact, it absolutely does have a point.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> I mean, what good is a law that won't be enforced or followed?
> 
> My state has a helmet law for children on bicycles under 12.
> Practically no one even knows it exists, the people who don't care enough to make their kids wear helmets to begin with definitely won't follow it, and there is no 'helmet patrol' going around and giving citations out. It's pointless.


How about the ATV law you mentioned earlier in your state. What's the penalty and is it enforced?


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

jimglassford said:


> Everyone is basing the cause of the crash on the expert hired by a lawyer? Really? In litigation, experts charge by the hour to say whatever the plaintiff and defend what them to say.


Experts don’t just say what counsel wants them to say. They have to have support for their opinion, less they get found not credible and have an end to their career as an expert. I have had experts that I have retained give great depos and turn around and tell me after there were questions not asked, that will be invariably asked at trial and have bad answers for the client. A good expert will tell you where the line is and the weaknesses in their opinions. Good experts will not put their reputation on the line for a case. Good experts testify for both plaintiffs and defendants, as they are asked at every depo what percentage of cases they do for each.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

ballisticexchris said:


> My condolences to the parents of these tragedy. I'm of the opinion that this lawsuit is fueled by emotion and not logic. I give the parents a pass as I know all too well what happens to common sense when a loved one loses their life. Regardless of cause.


None of us truly knows what we would do if we were in the same situation. It is impossible to know if the parents are suing because they want compensation, or if as the father says in his letter, their ultimate goal is to force change and hopefully prevent future similar accidents. Given the parents set up a foundation in the name of their child and live in Pacific Palisades (an extremely affluent community), there is a significant likelihood their motivation is the latter. It is entirely possible they will take any settlement or judgment donate those funds to the foundation and distribute them to the causes the foundation supports. 



DeoreDX said:


> Sometimes an accident is an accident. Regrettable and often avoidable but still an accident.


People have a hard time accepting this. This case reminded me of when my son was about 10 and taking a riding lesson at Northstar and I came to get him at the end and he was sitting with the instructor pretty banged up. He went to hit a jump, front wheel hit some sand and he went down straight into the face of the jump hard enough that he already had a bruise and scrapes around his eye from his goggles slamming into him through the full face. Minor concussion and the end of the riding day. 

The poor instructor was so freaked out. I tipped him $20 and thanked him. He couldn't understand why. I explained, this is downhilling, accidents happen, it wasn't anything he did wrong. My son was the one who discovered downhilling, tried it, loved it and wanted to do it. I understood the potential risks and allowed it.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> No, it shouldn't have, and it shouldn't be now.
> Why shouldn't my kid be allowed to ride whatever we deem fit just because some little kids did something dumb while their parents weren't supervising them?
> The law wouldn't have prevented this accident, nor will it prevent other's like it, nor does it do anything but punish and restrict people who haven't done anything wrong for no good reason.


In civil law we are probably looking more at negligence, how liable were the parents, the manufacturer, all parties involved. Laws dealing with design and production _may_ be able to "design out" a bad situation...but then again they may not. Comes down to the particulars of the case.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

slapheadmofo said:


> I mean, what good is a law that won't be enforced or followed?
> 
> My state has a helmet law for children on bicycles under 12.
> Practically no one even knows it exists, the people who don't care enough to make their kids wear helmets to begin with definitely won't follow it, and there is no 'helmet patrol' going around and giving citations out. It's pointless.


They are used as post-event penalties. That's it. So you can charge someone with something or have something "stick" in the situation. Just like you said, these are very difficult to enforce. Reckless driving is another one, because one person's definition of reckless may differ than another and even though you were driving 130mph or burning rubber, maybe you are a race-car driver and maybe you are in control, you could bring in experts, show your racing license, blah blah...but if the outcome is you totaled your car and hurt people, it was obviously reckless...so it gets tacked on. Some people like to think that such laws act as real deterrents, but I submit that human nature is to get away with whatever you can get away with and if you have a decent chance of getting away with it, as in you are likely to not get caught, most humans will risk it due to no expected consequences. So yeah, these laws don't tend to do much on the front end unfortunately.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

ballisticexchris said:


> This E-Bike craze is still in it's infancy.
> 
> A lot of rules and regulations are being written and changed as to the requirements on the use and the legality of them. We have local trail ordnance's that don't allow them at all regardless of classification.


I think that's a good point.

There are one of two ways to go here in general, a conservative route, which doesn't capitalize on all the possible markets and possibilities, or the opposite, which is more of a "money grab", but there are greater risks with the second approach. Specialized or Trek probably have some pretty good resources to throw at design, production, documents, procedures, warnings, etc. Some e-bike company putting together parts from catalog suppliers that just popped up 3 years ago...probably not. This situation is going to take a while to reach balance.


----------



## Drew H. (Oct 6, 2017)

Going forward just do like 4 wheeler/dirtbike manufacturers do and slap a sticker on it that says no one under 16 may operate and a properly fitted helmet is required for use, etc., etc.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Harold said:


> Speed and weight do matter. Speed wobbles are a possibility for a lot of bikes, but only under certain speed combos, weight distributions, and a few other factors. A poorly designed bicycle as you describe is going to have problems at a much lower speed threshold.


My brother was thrown off a huffy by speed wobbles when he was around 10, that ended his biking foray pretty fast.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Cary said:


> None of us truly knows what we would do if we were in the same situation. It is impossible to know if the parents are suing because they want compensation, or if as the father says in his letter, their ultimate goal is to force change and hopefully prevent future similar accidents. Given the parents set up a foundation in the name of their child and live in Pacific Palisades (an extremely affluent community), there is a significant likelihood their motivation is the latter. It is entirely possible they will take any settlement or judgment donate those funds to the foundation and distribute them to the causes the foundation supports.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, I see where they are coming from but don't see the end goal of this. Is it to make Rad Power make bikes with bolt on axles? Is it to make Rad Power have a sticker on the bike indicating that they are for +18 users only? Add more trail to their forks? All of these? 

And what about Giro? I would prefer my helmet cracks and breaks on impact than is the type that doesn't as one weighs grams and one weighs hundreds of grams more. Again, as cyclists some of this is common sense. I rode a santa cruz bullit for years with QR front and rear disk equipped wheels up and down trails all over arizona and never had an issue with the QR and disk but I also understood that it could be an issue. 

Also I find it interesting that the kid was able to pull the brake hard enough that the torque loosened the wheel but it wasn't enough to actually slow the bike. I weigh what these 2 kids on the rad power bike would weight and me plus my bike plus descending over rocky terrain I was never able to loosen a 2.3 tioga DH tire mounted wheel in my Fox Vanilla fork or the factory Shimano QR I used.

I understand there is an expert but honestly the description of what happened reminds me of exactly what happened to me when I got a speed wobble on my mountain bike at 45mph. Sadly I doubt these kids understood that you need to redistribute your weight on the bike, not grab a handful of brakes, loosen your grip and let the bike run out. With a kid on the back and a kid driving probably going white knuckled and grabbing a handful of front brake, this would all be things you would want to avoid with a speed wobble. If you have ever seen a speed wobble video of a motorcycle the oscillation eventually gets such that it throws the rider in the air as the bike finally throws itself to the ground. At 20mph, on a road, and landing on your head a MIPS helmet isn't going to help if you hit the side or back of your head and the Giro Vasona certainly does not protect the back or sides of the head.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Harold said:


> When it comes to preventing or reducing injuries, it probably is. But when it comes to assigning responsibility after the fact, it absolutely does have a point.


So, tell me how that works IRL.
Some 10 year old goes out and rides his bike without a helmet and cracks his skull at the skatepark and you, what, put his parents in jail?


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Cary said:


> So me, being me, I pulled the complaint (you all collectively owe me $21, the discounted rate as I have LA Sup Ct Account). The complaint alleges causes of action for:
> 
> _(1) Survival Action for Product Liability: Product Negligence;
> (2) Wrongful Death (Negligence);
> ...


Thanks for posting. This thing is chock full of speculation and leaps of inference, some likely based on a single injured minor witness (who are by the numbers statistically very unreliable). What I see here are two things - a bike company who didn't have the right lawyers review their ad copy and documentation, and a letter from the father that is clearly tantamount to saying outright, "Let's not waste time here because I'll tie you up in court forever - I've already made you look like a careless profiteer at the expense of society - let's negotiate a settlement and get this over with". Which is exactly what I expect will happen. He'll handily lose the Giro portion.

...and, another lawyer earns his profession's reputation.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

It's going to be interesting since Rad will need to fight this vigorously or there will be a new case every time someone dies on an ebike. Fortunately, they should be funded well since they've received millions in investment$ in the last few years. I saw a bunch of young kids (10 - 13) riding dangerously, some double, on Super 73's in a privileged area of socal recently and thought the next big legal issue would surface when they maimed or killed someone while they were joyriding on the sidewalk.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

rockcrusher said:


> Yeah, I see where they are coming from but don't see the end goal of this. Is it to make Rad Power make bikes with bolt on axles? Is it to make Rad Power have a sticker on the bike indicating that they are for +18 users only? Add more trail to their forks? All of these?
> 
> And what about Giro? I would prefer my helmet cracks and breaks on impact than is the type that doesn't as one weighs grams and one weighs hundreds of grams more. Again, as cyclists some of this is common sense. I rode a santa cruz bullit for years with QR front and rear disk equipped wheels up and down trails all over arizona and never had an issue with the QR and disk but I also understood that it could be an issue.
> 
> ...


One thing I've learned in litigation and investigation is you have to read the cases in their entirety to really judge. That doesn't mean that the judgement is correct (theirs or mine) but it at least gives an informed opinion, vs. what people "hear" on the internet or some news agency advertises. Unfortunately these usually get pretty complex and keeping up with developments and what is happening becomes challenging. I would agree, the helmet is intended to break to absorb energy. I mean, that's what ANY helmet should be doing. I've got a giant helmet for car-racing that makes my DH mountain bike helmet look pathetic, but even still, if you transfer that energy to your brain, you are going to possibly die. The energy has to be attenuated somehow. I've had a CF rim break hitting a rock and holy crap, that went off like a gunshot, but it also absorbed an incredible amount of energy doing so. I've been riding along and had a friend snap a seatpost, same thing. These types of failures would typically prevent the energy being transferred to the rider, although nothing is 100%. The more insidious failures are the design flaws or fatigue-life exceeded that start a small crack that propagates with each cycle and then suddenly fails, but the problem is it doesn't fail at 100% strength, it fails at a fraction of that, so in that case, it can easily transfer a huge load to the rider. So to that extent, if someone is going to show the helmet mfr is liable, it seems like a pretty tall order. The have to prove there was a design flaw, misrepresentation, intentional deception, failure to meet standards advertised, or something like that. The simple fat that it "didn't work" isn't going to be enough, although it is probably enough to get the case in court. The bigger problem is when companies and parties settle out of cost in these cases, because they don't want to go through the litigation, the appeals, etc. That's the sad part, related to the cost and burden of defending yourself. The ability to throw a case against someone for negligence is pretty powerful. The vetting is...problematic.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

BadgerOne said:


> Thanks for posting. This thing is chock full of speculation and leaps of inference, some likely based on a single injured minor witness (who are by the numbers statistically very unreliable). What I see here are two things - a bike company who didn't have the right lawyers review their ad copy and documentation, and a letter from the father that is clearly tantamount to saying outright, "Let's not waste time here because I'll tie you up in court forever - I've already made you look like a careless profiteer at the expense of society - let's negotiate a settlement and get this over with". Which is exactly what I expect will happen. He'll handily lose the Giro portion.
> 
> ...and, another lawyer earns his profession's reputation.


See my other post. It is hard to say that Rad is absolutely blameless. They are, as of now advertising their bikes saying things like: "The passenger package invites you to bring a friend for the ride, while the premium headlight gives you the confidence to hit the road any time." "How much can it carry? 300 lb." They also have pictures plastered over their site of kids on the back and two people on the bikes.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

Cary said:


> See my other post. It is hard to say that Rad is absolutely blameless. They are, as of now advertising their bikes saying things like: "The passenger package invites you to bring a friend for the ride, while the premium headlight gives you the confidence to hit the road any time." "How much can it carry? 300 lb." They also have pictures plastered over their site of kids on the back and two people on the bikes.
> 
> View attachment 1994019
> 
> ...


This is what I was referring to when I mentioned that they didn't have the right lawyers go over their ad copy and documentation. They are going to pay for that mistake one way or another. To what degree I guess we'll find out, assuming the settlement is made public.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Jayem said:


> One thing I've learned in litigation and investigation is you have to read the cases in their entirety to really judge. That doesn't mean that the judgement is correct (theirs or mine) but it at least gives an informed opinion, vs. what people "hear" on the internet or some news agency advertises. Unfortunately these usually get pretty complex and keeping up with developments and what is happening becomes challenging. I would agree, the helmet is intended to break to absorb energy. I mean, that's what ANY helmet should be doing. I've got a giant helmet for car-racing that makes my DH mountain bike helmet look pathetic, but even still, if you transfer that energy to your brain, you are going to possibly die. The energy has to be attenuated somehow. I've had a CF rim break hitting a rock and holy crap, that went off like a gunshot, but it also absorbed an incredible amount of energy doing so. I've been riding along and had a friend snap a seatpost, same thing. These types of failures would typically prevent the energy being transferred to the rider, although nothing is 100%. The more insidious failures are the design flaws or fatigue-life exceeded that start a small crack that propagates with each cycle and then suddenly fails, but the problem is it doesn't fail at 100% strength, it fails at a fraction of that, so in that case, it can easily transfer a huge load to the rider. So to that extent, if someone is going to show the helmet mfr is liable, it seems like a pretty tall order. The have to prove there was a design flaw, misrepresentation, intentional deception, failure to meet standards advertised, or something like that. The simple fat that it "didn't work" isn't going to be enough, although it is probably enough to get the case in court. The bigger problem is when companies and parties settle out of cost in these cases, because they don't want to go through the litigation, the appeals, etc. That's the sad part, related to the cost and burden of defending yourself. The ability to throw a case against someone for negligence is pretty powerful. The vetting is...problematic.


Agreed for sure. The thing that Giro will say as well is "did this helmet ever get dropped? Was it ever stored in a car during the day? Is it stored in the house or the garage?" All things that will reduce the efficiency of a helmet, especially a lighter weight one designed for road and recreational cycling. 

There are so many things that can compromise a helmets integrity.

Can't imagine this will get anywhere with the Giro although I wouldn't be surprised after this when all helmet manufacturers start putting "Not for e-bike use" on helmet as a CYA. That is ultimately what a lawsuit like this does. It adds another layer of CYA to products, which for Giro the bottom line will be adding a line of Ebike approved helmets and potentially driving the CPSC/Snell to make a more stringent test for ebike usage and speeds for certifying the ebike specific helmets which could potentially be beneficial for all users.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Drew H. said:


> Going forward just do like 4 wheeler/dirtbike manufacturers do and slap a sticker on it that says no one under 16 may operate and a properly fitted helmet is required for use, etc., etc.


Stickers like these on my kid's machine? 
Aside from being ugly, doesn't seem to be doing much. 🤷‍♂️  













WHALENARD said:


> How about the ATV law you mentioned earlier in your state. What's the penalty and is it enforced?


It's nothing I've ever heard of being enforced. 
It's not like there are any legal areas to ride to begin with, so pretty much anyone riding anywhere is already operating illegally.
Apparently a parent can be charged with neglect for letting their kid ride, but it's not something anyone seems to worry about.
Certainly never affected anything around my house; the law says under 17 you can only ride up to 90CC, but my son was on a 250 at 9 and a 450 at 12. 
Of course, I'm always highly aware of the mechanical conditions of his machines, how they operate, what my son's skill level is and how he rides and handles things, etc etc.

This type of things seems to come down in large part to clueless parents who don't bother to put the slightest thought into letting their kids play with vehicles regardless of whether their kids have what it takes to actually operate those vehicles safely, and not bothering to take a few seconds to make sure that the vehicle is indeed safe and fit to operate.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

rockcrusher said:


> Can't imagine this will get anywhere with the Giro although I wouldn't be surprised after this when all helmet manufacturers start putting "Not for e-bike use" on helmet as a CYA.


That's a good point. A bike helmet for e-bike use, especially on the road (see pictures of people riding on roads above) may need to be more like my DOT/Snell approved racing helmet, the same type that anyone would use to ride a motorcycle.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

rockcrusher said:


> "Not for e-bike use" on helmet as a CYA.


I just don't get this logic or how the RAD being an e-bike had anything to do with this crash other than the slightly tortured argument that the motor got them to the top of the hill? Gravity is what caused this accident, the unchecked acceleration of a heavily loaded bike freewheeling down a very steep hill.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

chiefsilverback said:


> I just don't get this logic or how the RAD being an e-bike had anything to do with this crash other than the slightly tortured argument that the motor got them to the top of the hill? Gravity is what caused this accident, the unchecked acceleration of a heavily loaded bike freewheeling down a very steep hill.


E-bikes are heavy, there is more mass involved. That would surely increase the forces, besides the ability to accelerate much faster.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Jayem said:


> That's a good point. A bike helmet for e-bike use, especially on the road (see pictures of people riding on roads above) may need to be more like my DOT/Snell approved racing helmet, the same type that anyone would use to ride a motorcycle.


Why? These bikes are limited to 20mph, there are lots of us who frequently exceed that speed on our non-e-bikes, both on and off road. Are you saying that to go over 20mph you should be wearing a DOT/Snell approved helmet? Tell that to the Tour de France team sponsored by Giro, "sorry chaps, here's the new team kit, full face motorcycle helmet and leathers".


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

chiefsilverback said:


> Why? These bikes are limited to 20mph, there are lots of us who frequently exceed that speed on our non-e-bikes, both on and off road. Are you saying that to go over 20mph you should be wearing a DOT/Snell approved helmet? Tell that to the Tour de France team sponsored by Giro, "sorry chaps, here's the new team kit, full face motorcycle helmet and leathers".


Physics, acceleration and mass.


----------



## Drew H. (Oct 6, 2017)

slapheadmofo said:


> Stickers like these on my kid's machine?
> Aside from being ugly, doesn't seem to be doing much. 🤷‍♂️


I know it doesn't be doing much but there are lawyers and insurance underwriters somewhere that they make happy in cases like this.


----------



## BicyclesOnMain (Feb 27, 2021)

This is a great discussion, great points from a lot of people. I'd like to add a few minor talking points: QR with disk brakes isn't a problem for 99.9999% of riders. We still sell plenty of bikes with QR wheels. The issue is that Radpower is primarily selling these mopeds to non cyclists. Here's what I have observed:
Absolutely none of the non cyclists that bring their Radpower (or similar) mopeds in to our shop have any clue how to use a QR. They either use it like a wrench, or leave it loose. 
Every single one comes with woefully inadequate brakes. I live in a hilly area and we are constantly seeing overheated rotors with toasted brake pads and we often upgrade these things to larger rotors. Radpower makes these things barely functional, nothing more.
Motorcycles can get speed wobbles, but at least they are designed with purpose. I mentioned my R1200GS, when they updated the design in 2013 there were some serious speed wobble issues they had to work out. But at least they did! Radpower and similar e-bikes look and ride like they were designed on a napkin during dinner with investors. Like I said, absolutely terrifying to ride, and with a passenger I can only imagine...

There is a massive divide between bikes like a Levo or Como (or any e-bike made by a bicycle company to ride like a bicycle), and these non bicycle mopeds that use bicycle parts to do the job of a motorcycle. This isn't about e-bikes, this is about toys sold as tools. Any child can walk up a hill and coast down at high speeds, but their bicycle doesn't weigh 80lb with a passenger seat. Radpower is basically the next lawn dart fiasco. If Radpower cared about their customers they would utilize a larger front wheel, have an engineer design the geometry and use 200mm brake rotors at minimum.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

chiefsilverback said:


> Why? These bikes are limited to 20mph, there are lots of us who frequently exceed that speed on our non-e-bikes, both on and off road. Are you saying that to go over 20mph you should be wearing a DOT/Snell approved helmet? Tell that to the Tour de France team sponsored by Giro, "sorry chaps, here's the new team kit, full face motorcycle helmet and leathers".


Yeah, I get that too but the results of lawsuits are stupid things. Cold coffee because someone spilled it on themselves at a drivethru, "not for off road use" on Big Box mountain bikes because someone was injured off road, lawyer tabs on qr forks because someone forgot to tighten their qr one their bike. 

It is the future of helmets i suspect. 

I do think that these bike would benefit from a more substantial helmet as a lot of them are really heavy, especially the cargo versions. Add that to the capacity to travel up to mid twenties and in the urban environment with lots of sharp and hard edges to hit and I certainly would be looking for something that would protect me like an All Mountain style helmet, but with a hard shell for a little more durability and the fact that i am not riding physically as much as a on a bike so the weight on my head is less of a concern.



chiefsilverback said:


> I just don't get this logic or how the RAD being an e-bike had anything to do with this crash other than the slightly tortured argument that the motor got them to the top of the hill? Gravity is what caused this accident, the unchecked acceleration of a heavily loaded bike freewheeling down a very steep hill.


Oh Rad is probably going to be paying out on this one, specifically because a child was riding the bike and they don't have a sticker saying that the bikes are for 18+. Frankly the cause of this accident was because an 11 year old was in control of the bike, not because of the bike itself. It is a heavy and fast bicycle being controlled by a child that might weigh 80lbs. I wouldn't be surprised if the bike weighed as much as one of the children. 

When I started riding with my kids the only bikes that were available for them weighed 30lbs or so. My kids weight 40lbs. At >75% of their weight they had a damn hard time doing anything on that bike and when it got out of control they just needed to ride it out. Now their bikes weight 30lbs still but they weight 80lbs and the difference of control when their bikes are now under 50% of their weight is pretty impressive. I mean my bike weights 35lbs or so and is a in the teens for percentage of my weight and it rarely is difficult to control because of its weight. 

Either way i feel for everyone involved in this. I am sure if this goes to trial no one will be happy with the outcome, there will be experts from the bike and helmet companies that will show how they failed their child, there will be experts that will show how the companies failed this child. Money will change hands. Things will change at companies and consumers will see things are different, perhaps.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rockcrusher said:


> Frankly the cause of this accident was because an 11 year old was in control of the bike, not because of the bike itself.


Exactly. 
And that's 100% on the parents.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> So, tell me how that works IRL.
> Some 10 year old goes out and rides his bike without a helmet and cracks his skull at the skatepark and you, what, put his parents in jail?


no, but it offers a degree of protection for you as a gov't entity against liability. you can point at the lack of a helmet and the responsibility of the kid to wear it and the parents to ensure the kid wears it, and the fact that there's a law on the books. same basic idea as for the manufacturer to put CYA statements on stickers on the product and in the owners manual.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

BadgerOne said:


> Thanks for posting. This thing is chock full of speculation and leaps of inference, some likely based on a single injured minor witness (who are by the numbers statistically very unreliable). What I see here are two things - a bike company who didn't have the right lawyers review their ad copy and documentation, and a letter from the father that is clearly tantamount to saying outright, "Let's not waste time here because I'll tie you up in court forever - I've already made you look like a careless profiteer at the expense of society - let's negotiate a settlement and get this over with". Which is exactly what I expect will happen. He'll handily lose the Giro portion.
> 
> ...and, another lawyer earns his profession's reputation.


I mean, that's pretty much every lawsuit. If the case is a total slam dunk, they don't go to court.

God forbid you're ever actually injured or financially wronged by someone.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

slapheadmofo said:


> Exactly.
> And that's 100% on the parents.


Well, if the problem is the bike itself, to any degree, "unsafe at any speed," then it's not 100% the parents' fault.

There's a good deal of evidence being discussed here that the bike is suboptimal to the point of dangerous, particularly in the wrong hands.

The parents bear some blame for placing the bike in the wrong hands, but so does the manufacturer for building a bike with poor, and cheap, design decisions. And, in many or most cases, the manufacturer is in a better position than the general public to know what the dangers are and who should be riding it, or not riding it.


----------



## milehi (Nov 2, 1997)

I volunteer at the bike safety rodeo put on jointly by the sheriff and CHP as a wrench. Besides bike fitting, adjustments and safety checks, I fit the helmet to the kids' head. Nearly all are the wrong size and are hand me downs, weathered and beat.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> Stickers like these on my kid's machine?
> Aside from being ugly, doesn't seem to be doing much. 🤷‍♂️
> 
> View attachment 1994023
> ...


First lol! 

Second totally but I suspect if your child injured himself and you were of the persuasion to see the need to sue the manufacturer because you are grieving and want to put meaning to this injury (without pointing that magnifying glass at yourself of course), the company would point at the warning and say sorry about that but we did put this warning on there to not let children use these devices, etc, etc. 

I think this is the same reasoning behind what the whole modify you vehicle voids warranty thing as well. We told you, you did it, this is a you problem now.

Also totally agree that the thing about kids is they are kids and they need to be parented. That means that a parent should be looking over their devices, toys, tools, etc to ensure that they are safe and that they know how to use them.

I mountain bike and ski with my kids. We ensure that their bikes are always maintained, tire pressure, brakes, qr, shifting etc, always. We always make sure their skis are sound, waxed, maintains, poles the correct height, helmets fit correctly, googles are clear and correct color, etc. because they don't know to do this stuff. Many kids will wear their shoes until their toes break out the front before telling you that they are too tight and parents expect to send them off on a motorcycle and expect them to know what to do at high speed, how to use brakes, how to slow down, etc. 

For the average schmo an ebike is just an easier bike, like they had when they were kids or in college. Get their kids one, it is fun, without realizing the difference in ebikes vs bikes and the fact that perhaps their kids are only familiar with a singlespeed department store bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

TwiceHorn said:


> Well, if the problem is the bike itself, "unsafe at any speed," then it's not 100% the parents' fault.


The bike didn't burst into flames out of nowhere or anything like that.


----------



## BadgerOne (Jul 17, 2015)

slapheadmofo said:


> The bike didn't burst into flames out of nowhere or anything like that.


Well, it does have a big gnarly battery pack...so eventually that will happen too.

I'm just curious to see how long it takes before we see 'DO NOT EAT' stickers on ebikes.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Harold said:


> no, but it offers a degree of protection for you as a gov't entity against liability. you can point at the lack of a helmet and the responsibility of the kid to wear it and the parents to ensure the kid wears it, and the fact that there's a law on the books. same basic idea as for the manufacturer to put CYA statements on stickers on the product and in the owners manual.


I threw in the skatepark reference randomly; the whole 'gov't entity' has nothing to do with anything really.
Could just as well be in the kid's own driveway. 
Parents who are going to put helmets on their kids are going to do it regardless.
Parents who don't, aren't. A toothless law that's completely unenforced (and unenforceable) is utterly useless.


----------



## twowheelmotion (Feb 10, 2010)

BicyclesOnMain said:


> I wonder if any other commenters have ridden the garbage that Radpower produces.


Ha. Ridden? Man, I have been tied to the proverbial Rad Power anchor for years. Get that sh*t away from me. 

I was a mechanic in South Lake Tahoe for quite some time. The shop I worked for was easily persuaded to make it policy to deny work on consumer-direct bikes of any type, specifically ebikes of this type.

As mentioned, these bikes are assembled by the inept customers that buy them, usually in some sort of horrendous manner, and then brought to us to make right. I mean, weekly/daily intervals of people trying to bring these things into the shop with the lamest issues from shifting adjustments to tire rubbing the downtube because the fork was backwards. At fist it was "eh, ok we will do it" time and time again. 

What prompted the denial of working on this crap and made policy was specifically, this older couple, like 75 years old, older couple. "Jerry" was his name, and had owned a Rad Power bike for himself. He later purchased one for his wife.

Very cute little old couple been married for 50 years or whatever. Jerry assembled the bike for her, then proceeds to bring the bike to me for racks and paneers and a light, and per the usual, tons of adjustments. Bleh. The wife comes down to ride the bike home with Jerry to the Keys. Whole shop was out front stoked for them giving the ol Bon Voyagie. She spends over a minute climbing onto this thing, Jerry is trying to hold the bike up with his frail arms, finally gets her on there. Not good. In less than TEN SECONDS on the bike, she gives it total Whisky Throttle, loops it into the shop van, faceplants, breaks her hip, ambulance, police report, all that. It was pure terror. Ok. No lawsuit, because they agreed it was operator error. Two weeks later, Jerry is riding by himself with a low back tire and didn't know it. On a ride he always does, a block from home, on the throttle, fish tails the bike at speed, low sides, clips the inside pedal, is flung like and breaks like 15 bones in his body. Hip, ribs, wrist, collarbone, face.


----------



## twowheelmotion (Feb 10, 2010)

milehi said:


> The parents should've got the kid a proper dirt bike like every 12 year old I knew growing up.


I had an RM 125. Very normal.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

rockcrusher said:


> Yeah, I get that too but the results of lawsuits are stupid things. Cold coffee because someone spilled it on themselves at a drivethru,


I wondered when this case would get referenced. McDonalds was found to be knowingly serving coffee at a temperature that far exceeded safe levels resulting in an elderly lady suffering third degree burns to her thighs and genitals. The massive award that was granted by the judge was based on a single day of McDonald's coffee sales at the time.




> Oh Rad is probably going to be paying out on this one, specifically because a child was riding the bike and they don't have a sticker saying that the bikes are for 18+.


Rad may be on the hook for something, but the fact that it was an e-bike is surely incidental. If they had crashed bombing along a flat road at 20mph using nothing but the throttle then sure make it an e-bike thing.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

twowheelmotion said:


> Ha. Ridden? Man, I have been tied to the proverbial Rad Power anchor for years. Get that sh*t away from me.
> 
> I was a mechanic in South Lake Tahoe for quite some time. The shop I worked for was easily persuaded to make it policy to deny work on consumer-direct bikes of any type, specifically ebikes of this type.
> 
> ...


Hell of a story. I keep coming back around to there being little to no dissociation between these things and bicycles. The kicker is these things will become more powerful while simultaneously looking more like bicycles into the future.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

WHALENARD said:


> Hell of a story. I keep coming back around to there being little to no dissociation between these things and bicycles. The kicker is these things will become more powerful while simultaneously looking more like bicycles into the future.


If it's got a throttle then it should sit in a different category.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

twowheelmotion said:


> Ha. Ridden? Man, I have been tied to the proverbial Rad Power anchor for years. Get that sh*t away from me.
> 
> I was a mechanic in South Lake Tahoe for quite some time. The shop I worked for was easily persuaded to make it policy to deny work on consumer-direct bikes of any type, specifically ebikes of this type.
> 
> ...


I live in Seattle where rad power is based and this particular brand is everywhere. Here you can buy them from a store so they come assembled from the floor by mechanics. So perhaps there is skew to what I have seen. 

That said it is a very basic machine, cable actuated brakes, hub powered, fat, fat tires, and mass. So much mass. 

I have a friend with the 26" wheeled version and he weighed his and it weighed 88lbs and it didn't have any of the add ons like racks, and seats and such. Just a diamond frame, hub motor and battery, cable brakes, shifters, a suspension fork, and tires. 88lbs. I can't strongly enough state how heavy these are. I came across a poor guy who had previously passed me and his battery must have died and I think that he might have been crying when I passed him. I felt for this guy. He still had a couple of miles of gradual climb until the road sloped back downward again for a bit.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

I just was looking at their website and noticed this under the before you buy tab (What Is An Ebike?)



> *How old do I have to be to ride an ebike?*
> You must be 16 or older to operate a Rad Power Bikes ebike. Children under the age of 16 may lack the necessary judgment and skill to safely operate the ebike. A parent or legal guardian should always decide whether a child should operate or ride on an electric bike or any other vehicle.
> 
> Some localities may require ebike riders to be older than 16, so know and obey local regulations regarding rider age and other qualification.


Third item on their list of items. From 2020 per the header.


----------



## 834905 (Mar 8, 2018)

I haven’t been keeping up with this thread very well so maybe it’s been discussed, but wouldn’t the fact that the kid was on the back riding in a manner that the bike wasn’t designed to be ridden in account for something? If I go hauling ass downhill standing on my top tube and eat it, that’s my fault not the bike designer.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

chiefsilverback said:


> I wondered when this case would get referenced. McDonalds was found to be knowingly serving coffee at a temperature that far exceeded safe levels resulting in an elderly lady suffering third degree burns to her thighs and genitals. The massive award that was granted by the judge was based on a single day of McDonald's coffee sales at the time.
> 
> 
> Rad may be on the hook for something, but the fact that it was an e-bike is surely incidental. If they had crashed bombing along a flat road at 20mph using nothing but the throttle then sure make it an e-bike thing.


Don’t forget that McDonalds’ defense was she failed to mitigate her damages, arguing that she should have jumped out of the car and stripped her clothes off. Her initial demand was asking her medical bills be paid, nothing more. The case was more an example of how to not handle a situation and how to offend the jurors than a failure of the legal system.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Cary said:


> See my other post. It is hard to say that Rad is absolutely blameless. They are, as of now advertising their bikes saying things like: "The passenger package invites you to bring a friend for the ride, while the premium headlight gives you the confidence to hit the road any time." "How much can it carry? 300 lb." They also have pictures plastered over their site of kids on the back and two people on the bikes.


I don't think the suit alleges that two people on the bike caused the accident, I think it effectivley states the opposite, that RAD advertise these as passenger carrying and therefore RAD can't say "she shouldn't have been riding on the back".


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

SingleSpeedSteven said:


> I haven’t been keeping up with this thread very well so maybe it’s been discussed, but wouldn’t the fact that the kid was on the back riding in a manner that the bike wasn’t designed to be ridden in account for something? If I go hauling ass downhill standing on my top tube and eat it, that’s my fault not the bike designer.


Except theyadvertise the bikes as being able to carry passengers, have photos on their website of it being done, and sell kits to allow it. Hard to argue it was outside of the intended use of the bike.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

chiefsilverback said:


> If it's got a motor then it should sit in a different category.


FIFY


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

TwiceHorn said:


> I mean, that's pretty much every lawsuit. If the case is a total slam dunk, they don't go to court.


There is no such thing as a slam dunk case, only cases with a higher or lower probability of success. Anything can and will happen at trial that can cause the best case to be lost and the worst one to be won. Most cases that end up at trial do so because of one of the following reasons:

Counsel- Either not understanding their case and the law, or in some cases, pushing a case solely to trial to increase their fees (especially abhorrent). 
Clients- A client that is stuck on "principal", vindictive, or just irrational. 
Unclear Law- There are occasionally cases were there are novel or unresolved issues of law that results in the need for a trial, and likely appeal to get resolved. 
Financial Benefit- Generally huge corporate cases, they know they will likely lose, but it financially better for them to keep going through trial, as the money they make in the meantime will make up for any judgment. 
I have been practicing for 25 years as a civil litigator. I can say that 70+% of attorneys (even those who are not very good attorneys) are legitimately trying to get a fair and just result for their client, while being conscious of the costs to the client of doing so (both financial and mental). It is the less than 30% that can make life hell.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Cary said:


> Except theyadvertise the bikes as being able to carry passengers, have photos on their website of it being done, and sell kits to allow it.





> _51.Additionally, Rad Power Bikes failed to provide reasonable instructions or warnings of the dangers and safety hazards associated with foreseeable use of the RadRunner, including the Subject Powerbike, by children under 18, and of the dangers and safety hazards associated with foreseeable use of the rear seat. Although Rad may claim, based on the smallprint “warning” on page 49 of 57 of the manual, that the RadRunner is intended to be ridden by people over 18, that warning is entirely inadequate. First, not all buyers actually receive the manual. Second, riders are not limited to buyers and will foreseeably include friends and family. Third, it appears to be intentionally buried toward the end of a lengthy manual, and written in small print, so that buyers and riders alike are unlikely ever to see it. Notably, there are no warnings on the RadRunner itself, nor on the Subject Powerbike, that it is to be ridden only by persons 18 or older. There were no such warnings on the website. In fact, the website’s images and reviews section actively market the RadRunner to child riders. Therefore, use of the RadRunner, including the Subject Powerbike, by children, was entirely foreseeable – and planned for – by Rad Power Bikes, and they profited and continue to profit by their intentional marketing of their bikes to children. Yet the RadRunner, including the Subject Powerbike, are not safe for children to ride, as Rad’s own manual admits. E-bikes, particularly the RadRunner, have a powerful motor that allow it to ascend – and therefore, descend from - heights that a child could not reach on a standard bike. Indeed, that is one of the main marketing pitches for Rad Power Bikes: that it allows people to reach places they otherwise could not. Yet the motor on the RadRunner, including the Subject Powerbike, is extremely powerful and is more akin to a scooter, ATV, or even a motorcycle, all of which are only safe for use by adults with fully developed bodies and reflexes. Another entirely foreseeable use of the RadRunner, including the Subject Powerbike, is the use of the rear space behind the rider as a seat for a passenger riding in tandem. The metal platform looks like a seat, and pictures of Rad’s website show passengers – often children - riding in that position. Rad does sell a special “kit” that adds additional seating parts to the frame of the rear seat; however, nowhere does Rad warn that the rear seat should only be used as a seat if the kit is installed. There are no warnings on the RadRunner and were no warnings on the Subject Powerbike itself, e.g., that that space should not be used as a seat or should only be used as a seat if the seat kit is installed. *Yet, as this accident demonstrated, the rear seat is not safe because in the event of a crash, the rear tandem passenger has no opportunity to brace or hold on to the bike and is much more likely to be forcibly ejected and injured in the event of a crash.*_




This is weird, and makes me think they are building a case and have very little understanding of how pillion riding works. Motorcycles also do not have handles or accessories for sitting on the rear yet no one that dies in a motorcycle accident says that that person would not have died in that accident if only they had something to brace against. Similarly anyone that has died solo on a bike was saved because they had a handlebar to hold. The rear seat thing is really grasping at straws. 

The other comment regarding the qr indicates that the braking force made the qr unthread loosening the wheel and causing the accident. This is not even the concept of qr failure that was present in the early qr scares with disc brakes, instead it was torque causing the wheel to pull out of the dropout.

The other thing about their warning about age and that not being on their website is not necessarily true, though not sure exactly when this happened, but as I noted above it is present on their website in the before you buy page.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

chiefsilverback said:


> I don't think the suit alleges that two people on the bike caused the accident, I think it effectivley states the opposite, that RAD advertise these as passenger carrying and therefore RAD can't say "she shouldn't have been riding on the back".


Correct. It states they hold the bikes out as able to carry passengers.


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

milehi said:


> Has anyone ever had a QR come loose with a disc brake? I haven't and haven't heard of it. If it were to happen it's got to be a combination of operator error and and junk equipment.


I've pull the sliders loose on the rear of my Unit but not out of the dropout. I've pulled the wheel out on the rear of a road bike with rim brakes a couple of times (same bike) when the qr wasn't REALLY, REALLY tight. Pretty sure these were from hard mashing on the pedals, not braking.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

slapheadmofo said:


> Fifty "If it has a motor I should sit in a different category"


Zactly. Especially moving forward as they will only get more powerful and more difficult to distinguish from a bike. 

My original comment was from the perspective of a consumer. I don't think many understand or differentiate the dangers between these things and bicycles. I'm not saying that's good, bad, indifferent or who bears responsibility in the educating process...I'm just stating that that's how it is.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

rockcrusher said:


> This is weird, and makes me think they are building a case and have very little understanding of how pillion riding works. Motorcycles also do not have handles or accessories for sitting on the rear yet no one that dies in a motorcycle accident says that that person would not have died in that accident if only they had something to brace against. Similarly anyone that has died solo on a bike was saved because they had a handlebar to hold. The rear seat thing is really grasping at straws.
> 
> The other comment regarding the qr indicates that the braking force made the qr unthread loosening the wheel and causing the accident. This is not even the concept of qr failure that was present in the early qr scares with disc brakes, instead it was torque causing the wheel to pull out of the dropout.
> 
> The other thing about their warning about age and that not being on their website is not necessarily true, though not sure exactly when this happened, but as I noted above it is present on their website in the before you buy page.


Keep in mind, the complaint is just that, allegations based on the information available at the time of the complaint. It is not intended to be the entire case. It is simply a document that lays out the scope of the claims to allow the defendants to ascertain the scope of the claims alleged against them:

"(a) A complaint or cross-complaint shall contain both of the following:
(1) A statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.
(2) A demand for judgment for the relief to which the pleader claims to be entitled. If the recovery of money or damages is demanded, the amount demanded shall be stated." Code Civ. Proc., § 425.10

*"Less particularity doctrine:* Less particularity is required in pleading _matters of which the defendant has superior knowledge;_ e.g., allegations as to D's knowledge or notice or intent. [_Foster v. Sexton,_ supra, 61 CA5th at 1028, 276 CR3d at 197 (citing text)]

Such matters may be alleged on information and belief (¶ 6:225); and the complaint will be upheld “so long as it gives notice of the issues sufficient to enable preparation of a defense.” [_Doe v. City of Los Angeles_ (2007) 42 C4th 531, 549-550, 67 CR3d 330, 343-344]"


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Hmm looking at the wayback machine for dec 2020 (accident happened Jan 2021 and it was indicated that the bike was 1 month old), there is definitely not the same info regarding the age limits as easy to find as it is now (not surprising I guess).

This is not super clear either: Best Electric Bikes for Families | Rad Power Bikes

Definitely not a fat line showing that this is an adult only vehicle. Certainly having a family tab thing is not conclusive that it means family truckster with adults driving the kids on back.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

Cary said:


> There is no such thing as a slam dunk case, only cases with a higher or lower probability of success. Anything can and will happen at trial that can cause the best case to be lost and the worst one to be won. Most cases that end up at trial do so because of one of the following reasons:
> 
> Counsel- Either not understanding their case and the law, or in some cases, pushing a case solely to trial to increase their fees (especially abhorrent).
> Clients- A client that is stuck on "principal", vindictive, or just irrational.
> ...


Oh, indeed.

I was just attempting to illustrate the point for the poster.

But, there are disputes, or potential disputes, where the liability is sufficiently clear that no one goes to court. As in your average fender-bender with only property damage. Or a frame warranty case.


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

rockcrusher said:


> The other comment regarding the qr indicates that the braking force made the qr unthread loosening the wheel and causing the accident. This is not even the concept of qr failure that was present in the early qr scares with disc brakes, instead it was torque causing the wheel to pull out of the dropout.


QR unthreading is a corollary of the braking-induced moment twisting the axle out of the downward-facing dropout. The idea is that cycles of force that don't quite twist the axle out of the dropout will nevertheless progressively loosen the QR (through something of a ratcheting action) to the point where the axle will eventually succeed in being twisted out of the dropout, even when there are lawyer tabs/lips present. James Annan developed this theory through anecdotes shared with him about people observing QR loosening during hard braking, which was then interpreted through his reading of Bolt Science Web Site , which was then concurred by Chris Juden of Cycling UK (née "Cycling Touring Club"). See "Part 2. The self-extracting quick release skewer." section on the main page of his site about this issue.

This is why it seems to me that the Steinsapirs' accusation is based on Annan's theory... but I fear that they might be getting themselves into trouble if the defense brings in an engineer to interpret the math that suggests that the relatively small wheels and big rotors of the Rad Power reduces the magnitude of the braking-induced moment and its corollary, force-cycle-induced QR loosening, relative to most adult bikes on the road. Which would make it an ironic anti-parallel to their other accusation, that the trail numbers of the fork makes their version of the Rad Runner less stable than most adult bikes on the road.

If it is an established fact that the front wheel detached to cause the crash, it would suggest that the QR wasn't properly secured in the first place, which makes moot what I feel is actually the stronger* argument, that the fork geometry might be insufficiently stable, underscored by Rad Power's subsequent model year revision.

* Stronger by virtue of the fact that you don't need to convince the jury that that a 13-yo owner and 11-yo rider of the Rad Runner conscientiously and correctly checks QR securement every time they ride.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

DtEW said:


> QR unthreading is a corollary of the braking-induced moment twisting the axle out of the downward-facing dropout. The idea is that cycles of force that don't quite twist the axle out of the dropout will nevertheless loosen the QR (through something of a ratcheting action) to the point where the axle will eventually succeed in being twisted out of the dropout, even when there are lawyer tabs/lips present. James Annan developed this theory through anecdotes shared with him about people observing QR loosening during hard braking, which was then interpreted through his reading of Bolt Science Web Site , which was then concurred by Chris Juden of Cycling UK (née "Cycling Touring Club"). See "Part 2. The self-extracting quick release skewer." section on the main page of his site about this issue.
> 
> This is why it seems to me that the Steinsapirs' accusation is based on Annan's theory... but I fear that they might be getting themselves into trouble if the defense brings in an engineer to interpret the math that suggests that the relatively small wheels and big rotors of the Rad Power makes it less susceptible to this issue than most adult bikes on the road. Notable, because their other accusation is that the trail numbers of the fork makes the Rad Power less stable than most adult bikes on the road.


Hmm interesting! Thanks for that. Makes sense, though again how much braking would be needed to loosen a qr vs how much time were they braking? In the accusation they noted that the 11 year old braked with the rear, then with the front then crashed when it began to wobble. Was that enough time to loosen the qr? Can this happen immediately?

Looking at the links above the anecdotal instances indicated a braking time over the course of a descent with a lot of trailing braking so not instantly, and another that was over a period of time of multiple days.

Could this have failed within a period of time, which obviously we don't know how long they were descending, to the point that the heat and slippage of the qr could have taken it to the point that it was loose enough to impact stability? What about if the qr was loose? And it if was loose is this now no longer an issue with Rad but a user issue, as it is not like it is Rad's problem if the owner didn't understand qr function.

So many questions.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

DtEW said:


> QR unthreading is a corollary of the braking-induced moment twisting the axle out of the downward-facing dropout. The idea is that cycles of force that don't quite twist the axle out of the dropout will nevertheless loosen the QR (through something of a ratcheting action) to the point where the axle will eventually succeed in being twisted out of the dropout, even when there are lawyer tabs/lips present. James Annan developed this theory through anecdotes shared with him about people observing QR loosening during hard braking, which was then interpreted through his reading of Bolt Science Web Site , which was then concurred by Chris Juden of Cycling UK (née "Cycling Touring Club"). See "Part 2. The self-extracting quick release skewer." section on the main page of his site about this issue.
> 
> This is why it seems to me that the Steinsapirs' accusation is based on Annan's theory... but I fear that they might be getting themselves into trouble if the defense brings in an engineer to interpret the math that suggests that the relatively small wheels and big rotors of the Rad Power reduces the magnitude of the braking-induced moment and its corollary, force-cycle-induced QR loosening, than most adult bikes on the road. Which would make it an ironic anti-parallel to their other accusation, that the trail numbers of the fork makes the Rad Power less stable than most adult bikes on the road.
> 
> If it is an established fact that the front wheel detached to cause the crash, it would suggest that the QR wasn't properly secured in the first place, which makes moot what I feel is actually the stronger argument, that the fork geometry might be insufficiently stable, underscored by Rad Power's subsequent model year revision.


You can be quite certain that an opposing expert will be of that or a similar opinion.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

slapheadmofo said:


> The bike didn't burst into flames out of nowhere or anything like that.


To add to your point, I believe in the Corvair case, it was just not a design issue, it was a known design issue that GM decided was not worth addressing. The same with the Pinto when rear ended, it would burst into flames due to the location of the gas tank. The main case that got national attention was when a driver of a Pinto missed their exit on the expressway and decided to go in reverse to get back to their exit. The car was struck at expressway speeds. The plaintiffs showed that Ford had test data showing this could happen but did not react. In another automotive case, a person was killed in a car that lacked airbags. It was not mandated yet so this particular model did not have them. The plaintiffs won the case for a large payday because the technology existed and if it was used in the car, the occupants may have survived. 

In each of these cases, and with the McDonalds Coffee, jurors are part of the problem. Although we as observers know the lawsuit is BS, jurors feel benevolent by awarding big sums of money to grieving parents. They think like a lot of those in this forum, it is money that insurance companies and greedy CEOs steal from us. Lets get them back. 

In the end, the appeals process makes some correction when the judges reduce the awarded sums by a very large factor.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

jimglassford said:


> To add to your point, I believe in the Corvair case, it was just not a design issue, it was a known design issue that GM decided was not worth addressing. The same with the Pinto when rear ended, it would burst into flames due to the location of the gas tank. The main case that got national attention was when a driver of a Pinto missed their exit on the expressway and decided to go in reverse to get back to their exit. The car was struck at expressway speeds. The plaintiffs showed that Ford had test data showing this could happen but did not react. In another automotive case, a person was killed in a car that lacked airbags. It was not mandated yet so this particular model did not have them. The plaintiffs won the case for a large payday because the technology existed and if it was used in the car, the occupants may have survived.
> 
> In each of these cases, and with the McDonalds Coffee, jurors are part of the problem. Although we as observers know the lawsuit is BS, jurors feel benevolent by awarding big sums of money to grieving parents. They think like a lot of those in this forum, it is money that insurance companies and greedy CEOs steal from us. Lets get them back.
> 
> In the end, the appeals process makes some correction when the judges reduce the awarded sums by a very large factor.


I addressed above why the jury slammed McDonalds in their case, it was McDonalds horrible callousness at trial, arguing an old lady should have jumped out of the car and stripped limit her burns. The punitive were 1 day of coffee sales, not an excessive amount. 

In the Ford Pinto case, what killed Ford was not that they were aware of the hazard, but the existence of documents calculating the cost of fixing the issue (less than $1 a vehicle) versus the number of lives likely lost and the payouts. 

As far as believing insurance will pay, at least in California, there are explicit rules against introducing evidence of insurance coverage. "By statute, evidence of a defendant’s insurance coverage is inadmissible to prove liability." (Evid. Code, § 1155.) The standard jury instruction given is: "You must not consider whether any of the parties in this case has insurance. The presence or absence of insurance is totally irrelevant. You must decide this case based only on the law and the evidence." (CACI 5001.)


----------



## Drew H. (Oct 6, 2017)

I guess a question(s) that will probably be addressed is who installed the qr? Rad? LBS? Dad? etc. and was it installed correctly to begin with?


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

chiefsilverback said:


> I wondered when this case would get referenced. McDonalds was found to be knowingly serving coffee at a temperature that far exceeded safe levels resulting in an elderly lady suffering third degree burns to her thighs and genitals. The massive award that was granted by the judge was based on a single day of McDonald's coffee sales at the time.
> 
> 
> Rad may be on the hook for something, but the fact that it was an e-bike is surely incidental. If they had crashed bombing along a flat road at 20mph using nothing but the throttle then sure make it an e-bike thing.


And as usual, there's a whole lot more behind the McD story that people usually fail to research, such as their knowledge about the issue previously, industry standards, previous settlements they made, lying about facts of the case in court and being caught lying, and so on. There were some pretty solid reasons they were found to be partially (yes, not totally) negligent in the case. This has unfortunately become a poster-child though for people that fail to actually do research and just echo what someone else said. Not saying that's you, just that this case is a great example of it.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

jimglassford said:


> In each of these cases, and with the McDonalds Coffee, jurors are part of the problem.


You really should research that case:


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

jimglassford said:


> To add to your point, I believe in the Corvair case, it was just not a design issue, it was a known design issue that GM decided was not worth addressing. The same with the Pinto when rear ended, it would burst into flames due to the location of the gas tank. The main case that got national attention was when a driver of a Pinto missed their exit on the expressway and decided to go in reverse to get back to their exit. The car was struck at expressway speeds. The plaintiffs showed that Ford had test data showing this could happen but did not react. In another automotive case, a person was killed in a car that lacked airbags. It was not mandated yet so this particular model did not have them. The plaintiffs won the case for a large payday because the technology existed and if it was used in the car, the occupants may have survived.
> 
> In each of these cases, and with the McDonalds Coffee, jurors are part of the problem. Although we as observers know the lawsuit is BS, jurors feel benevolent by awarding big sums of money to grieving parents. They think like a lot of those in this forum, it is money that insurance companies and greedy CEOs steal from us. Lets get them back.
> 
> In the end, the appeals process makes some correction when the judges reduce the awarded sums by a very large factor.


One of the things revealed in the Pinto litigation is that Ford did a cost-benefit analysis that predicted the cost of injuries and deaths versus the cost of correcting the design flaw and deliberately chose to take their chances with the injuries and death rather than incur the expense of correcting it, which was in the vicinity of $10-11 per vehicle.

The juries found that offensive, and, can you really disagree?

Also, the stories of juries run amok are isolated and somewhat aberrational and are pushed by people with an agenda, the pernicious and persistent myths about the McDonald's case being but one example.

One other fact missing from the McDonald's case: the jury awarded $200k for compensatory damages, which was reduced by 20% in accordance with their finding that the plaintiff was 20% negligent. They also awarded $2.7M in punitive damages.

The trial judge reduced the punitive award to $480k (3x the reduced compensatory damages), for a grand total of $640k. The case was ultimately settled for a reported $500k, in lieu of appeals.


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

holy trainwreck Batman......


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

cmg said:


> holy trainwreck Batman......


Hey, we've stayed off gunz though, so that's something. 

I think this is a good thread that brings up a lot of interesting questions. As manufacturers scramble to get a piece of the action in the elusive e-bike market, we are likely to see more of these issues. Wasn't Simon Cowell severely injured by an e-bike a few years ago? Point is there is a massive amount of variation on these, a massive amount of companies trying to get in on the action, massive amount of power that can be at the fingertips of a rider and there are going to need to be checks and balances. The more a product has a capability to injure or do something real bad, the more checks and balances there need to be on that product or market. I think there should at least be a required briefing when buying a normal bike, for the rules of the trail and protection of other trail users, signed by the purchaser. Hopefully it doesn't come to banning bikes from more and more trails due to user conflicts. Again, lots of interesting points have been brought up and lots of good contributions IMO.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Jayem said:


> Hey, we've stayed off gunz though, so that's something.
> 
> I think this is a good thread that brings up a lot of interesting questions. As manufacturers scramble to get a piece of the action in the elusive e-bike market, we are likely to see more of these issues. Wasn't Simon Cowell severely injured by an e-bike a few years ago? Point is there is a massive amount of variation on these, a massive amount of companies trying to get in on the action, massive amount of power that can be at the fingertips of a rider and there are going to need to be checks and balances. The more a product has a capability to injure or do something real bad, the more checks and balances there need to be on that product or market. I think there should at least be a required briefing when buying a normal bike, for the rules of the trail and protection of other trail users, signed by the purchaser. Hopefully it doesn't come to banning bikes from more and more trails due to user conflicts. Again, lots of interesting points have been brought up and lots of good contributions IMO.


As bike commuter (well pre and post pandemic) I have seen a huge uptick of riders on ebikes. You can tell the new riders by their lack of understanding of basics of bike etiquette (bells or voice to pass, slowing at intersection or on wet pavement, etc). The other thing I have been noticing is a huge uptick in the amount of bikes that travel well over 20mph. I can hold that speed on a flat on my bike if I am feeling spicy and regularly get passed by throttle bikes, where the users are coasting and throttling passed me. Often it is in an unsafe area (pedestrians or a complicated vehicular intersection) or on a MUP. Either way I think there will come a turning point where jurisdictions will have to do something about them. 

In the late 90's early aughts there was the whole gas motor powered bike and scooter craze and a lot of municipalities subsequently ended up restricting them due to injuries and speed potential. That said I think there is more tolerance to the ebikes as they are quiet and view as green. Time will tell for sure.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

Other than deep pockets, why was Giro targeted? In what way was Giro’s helmet defective? Sounds like it functioned properly. Polystyrene helmets function destructively and do not guarantee complete head protection. Helmeted cyclists die of head injury regularly. 

OTOH, why was the neighbor *not* sued? Shallow pockets maybe? They bought the eBike and allowed their daughter to pilot it with a passenger on a 20% grade. Where were the adults (both families) in this tragic mess?


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

rockcrusher said:


> As bike commuter (well pre and post pandemic) I have seen a huge uptick of riders on ebikes.


Not to deter from this topic but yes it is crazy how many of these ebikes (along with inexperienced riders) are flooding the local trails and bike paths/roads near me here in Southern CA. I almost purchased one myself. 

Both my doctor and physical therapist steered me away from one. I came very close to getting a Trek Rail. I decided on the Slash instead. I'm so happy I did. I wrote out a list of pros and cons. The cons were just too many to deny. I actually need to get my leg strength back. I could see myself using a ebike as a crutch and leaving it in pedal assist all the time. I rode a Yamaha YDX and was impressed. 



rockcrusher said:


> The other thing I have been noticing is a huge uptick in the amount of bikes that travel well over 20mph.


LOL funny you mention that. The SUR-RON is the electric powerhouse I'm seeing a lot of these days right along with the "chipped" E-bikes. When you see a peddle assisted bike blazing along at 30mph+ something is not right.....


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

Remember that the majority of "bikes" are sold by Walmart, etc. and for kids, who ride them in their neighborhood. How do you separate them from the riders using them for sport or transportation? You're not going to get someone at Walmart to explain the rules of the trail/bike lane, etc. And my guess is that Walmart will sell more and more "ebikes".


----------



## chazpat (Sep 23, 2006)

I saw a couple the other day riding motorized scooters (the kind you stand on with ~12" wheels) on the sidewalk wearing full face helmets. Seemed kinda funny but probably a good idea.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

DtEW said:


> If it is an established fact that the front wheel detached to cause the crash,


Doesn't seem that that's what happened.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

Dkayak said:


> OTOH, why was the neighbor *not* sued? Shallow pockets maybe? They bought the eBike and allowed their daughter to pilot it with a passenger on a 20% grade. Where were the adults (both families) in this tragic mess?


That is probably the best indicator that the plaintiff isn't looking for money, but rather remedial action by the manufacturers. Given the affluence of the neighborhood, I'd guess the neighbors have sufficient funds and insurance to chip in substantially to any monetary recovery.

Judging by the information in the petition regarding the bike, the plaintiffs have conducted a fairly serious investigation of the accident, so they aren't just slinging stuff against the wall.

I deduce from that that someone on their team has opined that the Giro helmet is somehow deficient and may not meet safety standards.


----------



## phantoj (Jul 7, 2009)

The explaining of why the McDonald's case wasn't a BS case is just an example of lawyers doing what they do best: stretching the truth and manipulating emotions for the benefit of their interest. I think if you look at the whole truth it's still a bogus lawsuit.... this is my Unpopular Opinion, call it a "hot take" if you will.

Likewise, if you have any common sense you know that if a QR wheel comes off, it was probably installed incorrectly.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

phantoj said:


> The explaining of why the McDonald's case wasn't a BS case is just an example of lawyers doing what they do best: stretching the truth and manipulating emotions for the benefit of their interest. I think if you look at the whole truth it's still a bogus lawsuit.... this is my Unpopular Opinion, call it a "hot take" if you will.
> 
> Likewise, if you have any common sense you know that if a QR wheel comes off, it was probably installed incorrectly.


Indulge us. Please explain what your “truth” of the case is. What was stretched and manipulated by myself and others?


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

phantoj said:


> The explaining of why the McDonald's case wasn't a BS case is just an example of lawyers doing what they do best: stretching the truth and manipulating emotions for the benefit of their interest. I think if you look at the whole truth it's still a bogus lawsuit.... this is my Unpopular Opinion, call it a "hot take" if you will.
> 
> Likewise, if you have any common sense you know that if a QR wheel comes off, it was probably installed incorrectly.


On the other hand, the constant misrepresentation of the case is a triumph of misinformation by people who want to curtail your, yes your, access to the courts of this country, in the event you are wronged or otherwise injured.

Funny, a lot of those same people, most of them in fact, are opposed to most other types of regulation of businesses.

Seems like they might want to do unto others and then split.

Regardless, the lawyers' explanation of the case is factual. The other side of it is not factual.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

McDonald's was serving coffee at 190°. The lady who burned herself had to have skin grafts to her inner thighs and private area. Not sure that qualifies as frivolous.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

It's really fascinating that lawyers, and injury lawyers in particular, whose business is persuasion and often have pretty good political stroke and tend to be well-organized nationally, have failed to counter the tort reform lobby effectively.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

WHALENARD said:


> McDonald's was serving coffee at 190°. The lady who burned herself had to have skin grafts to her inner thighs and private area. Not sure that qualifies as frivolous.


I think most of the world would disagree with you. Do most people who injury themselves look for someone to sue?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

jimglassford said:


> I think most of the world would disagree with you. Do most people who injury themselves look for someone to sue?


I think when you explain that there had been over 700 incidents involving McDonalds' scalding hot coffee, that they were in breach of safety guidelines, that the plaintiff suffered third degree burns require skins grafts as a result of McDonalds' negligence, that all she asked for was $20,000 to cover her medical cost and McDonalds refused, then most people would think this was a perfectly valid lawsuit. When they learn that the final settlement was a percentage of a single day of McDonalds' coffee sales I don't think anyone would try to defend the Golden Arches!


----------



## Canssago (9 mo ago)

chiefsilverback said:


> I think when you explain that there had been over 700 incidents involving McDonalds' scalding hot coffee, that they were in breach of safety guidelines, that the plaintiff suffered third degree burns require skins grafts as a result of McDonalds' negligence, that all she asked for was $20,000 to cover her medical cost and McDonalds refused, then most people would think this was a perfectly valid lawsuit. When they learn that the final settlement was a percentage of a single day of McDonalds' coffee sales I don't think anyone would try to defend the Golden Arches!


They did not change the coffee but added the label " contents may be hot". It is a stupid lawsuit. And because it was a big business it is OK to take their money? WTF? 

How many incidents involve people being hurt by cars? Maybe we can sue car companies because of DUI's? How about some personal reasonability? Ride naked and when you hurt your schlong sue the saddle maker and make sure you bought it from Amazon because they make more money then other companies and deserve to pay out frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

phantoj said:


> The explaining of why the McDonald's case wasn't a BS case is just an example of lawyers doing what they do best: stretching the truth and manipulating emotions for the benefit of their interest.


If you're referring to the video I linked I think you'll find that's a comedian, not a lawyer, and what they were doing was setting the record straight. Imagine being the victim in that case and knowing that you are referenced on a daily basis, all over the world, as an example of "stupid person who doesn't know that coffee is hot", or a "money grabber" etc... There are undoubtedly frivolous lawsuits, the guy who sued Nike/Michael Jordan for hundreds of millions in damages for the hardships they had caused him because he looks like Michael Jordan, the guy who is the baby in the pool on the Nirvana album cover who, after enjoying it for years and recreating the photo a few times, has decided he was exploited and wants to sue the estate of Kurt Cobain. Those are frivolous, not a woman suffer severe injuries as a result of a multi-billion dollar company's wilful negligence.


----------



## Canssago (9 mo ago)

chiefsilverback said:


> If you're referring to the video I linked I think you'll find that's a comedian, not a lawyer, and what they were doing was setting the record straight. Imagine being the victim in that case and knowing that you are referenced on a daily basis, all over the world, as an example of "stupid person who doesn't know that coffee is hot", or a "money grabber" etc... There are undoubtedly frivolous lawsuits, the guy who sued Nike/Michael Jordan for hundreds of millions in damages for the hardships they had caused him because he looks like Michael Jordan, the guy who is the baby in the pool on the Nirvana album cover who, after enjoying it for years and recreating the photo a few times, has decided he was exploited and wants to sue the estate of Kurt Cobain. Those are frivolous, not a woman suffer severe injuries as a result of a multi-billion dollar company's wilful negligence.


How is it not negligence to stick hot coffee between your legs?


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

Canssago said:


> How is it not negligence to stick hot coffee between your legs?


How did this thread a deadly tragedy from a E-Bike turn into to spilling lukewarm McDonald's coffee in between some ladies legs? 

My understanding she was looking to get a labia majora reduction surgery on McDonald's corps dime. It has to be true. I saw it on the internet.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

chiefsilverback said:


> I think when you explain that there had been over 700 incidents involving McDonalds' scalding hot coffee, that they were in breach of safety guidelines, that the plaintiff suffered third degree burns require skins grafts as a result of McDonalds' negligence, that all she asked for was $20,000 to cover her medical cost and McDonalds refused, then most people would think this was a perfectly valid lawsuit. When they learn that the final settlement was a percentage of a single day of McDonalds' coffee sales I don't think anyone would try to defend the Golden Arches!


Also, if you are injured and have medical insurance, if it is an incident that might be someone else's fault, the medical insurer has a right of reimbursement from the person/entity at fault. They will ask you the circumstances of something like this. And even if they don't sue in your name, that can plant the seed.

We've all probably spilled coffee from home or someplace on ourselves without being seriously injured. I don't think this suggests that you should sue for that if someone else made the coffee.

But if you spilled coffee on yourself and got burned so severely that you end up in the hospital to undergo skin grafts and debridement, which is excruciatingly painful, you might not start to wonder what in the hell happened?

And then you get hit with medical bills for it and you are actually out of pocket some fairly significant money. And God forbid you don't have adequate insurance, which is increasingly likely these days. The plaintiff did not ask for $20k, initially, but only $2000, and Mickey Ds never offered more than $800.

And, as pointed out, suing someone is not exactly like cashing in a lottery ticket. It's not a lot of fun. A lot of plaintiffs don't realize that, although I'm sure good plaintiffs counsel will warn them that it isn't going to be a easy slog.

Again, the narrative that the McDonald's case is an example of plaintiffs and a jury system run amok is false and that is factual and easily verified. Then you must ask yourself, why would such a narrative be created and "pushed" to the point that it is commonly known and repeated? And, why on earth would people's initial sympathies lie with a giant, faceless corporation over a severely burned grandma?

Talk about "fake news."


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

Canssago said:


> How is it not negligence to stick hot coffee between your legs?


She was adjudged 20% negligent. Spilling coffee on yourself should never result in skin grafts.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

ballisticexchris said:


> How did this thread a deadly tragedy from a E-Bike turn into to spilling lukewarm McDonald's coffee in between some ladies legs?
> 
> My understanding she was looking to get a labia majora reduction surgery on McDonald's corps dime. It has to be true. I saw it on the internet.


It got to this because people immediately started questioning the motives of the parents of the deceased child and then bloviating about the jury system based on a false narrative.

That the false narrative is so well-known and constantly repeated, despite easily available facts that contradict it, should be troubling.

And, it's not just a silly internet rumor that has more traction than it deserves. Laws have been changed in the recent past based on a similar dubious narrative.


----------



## Cleared2land (Aug 31, 2012)

Okay, let's see how long it takes before this gets the mods attention.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Canssago said:


> How is it not negligence to stick hot coffee between your legs?


If you watched the video I shared, or read the details about the case, you would know that she openly admitted that the spill was her fault, but if the coffee had been served at a safe temperature her injuries wouldn't have required hospitalisation and skin grafting. At 190F severe burns are pretty much instantaneous.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

McDonalds is definitely a case of the system running amok. If someone is severely burned at home from a cup of coffee they made themselves, should they sue their own insurance company? My neighbor has been riding mountain bikes for for over 40 years. Last year he hit a tree and broke a rib. Everyone felt sorry for him, he was in pain and he had medical bills. This meets all of the criteria for a law suit. Who should he sue?


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

If I have gone overly "political," then I apologize.

There is so much misinformation about legal matters that circulates, I get heated about correcting it.

And, matters legal are never too far from politics, even if not explicitly political.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

jimglassford said:


> McDonalds is definitely a case of the system running amok. If someone is severely burned at home from a cup of coffee they made themselves, should they sue their own insurance company? My neighbor has been riding mountain bikes for for over 40 years. Last year he hit a tree and broke a rib. Everyone felt sorry for him, he was in pain and he had medical bills. This meets all of the criteria for a law suit. Who should he sue?


Don't be fatuous.

What is missing from that scenario is any possible third party that may have caused the accident or exacerbated the injuries.

How often are you seriously burned by coffee at home? I say as I stick my finger into my coffee cup.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

jimglassford said:


> McDonalds is definitely a case of the system running amok. If someone is severely burned at home from a cup of coffee they made themselves, should they sue their own insurance company?


If you came to my house and suffered third degree burns as a result of a deliberate action I took, e.g. serving you 190F liquid, there's a good chance your insurance company would try to get me to pay for your medical bills!


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

TwiceHorn said:


> That the false narrative is so well-known and constantly repeated, despite easily available facts that contradict it, should be troubling.


Isn't that the truth. So many love to speculate and make outrageous assumptions based on something they have no clue about.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

chiefsilverback said:


> If you watched the video I shared, or read the details about the case, you would know that she openly admitted that the spill was her fault, but if the coffee had been served at a safe temperature her injuries wouldn't have required hospitalisation and skin grafting. At 190F severe burns are pretty much instantaneous.


The coffee industry consensus is brewed coffee is best made from water at 200 +/-5 deg F. Some temperture drop occurs as grounds and the carafe absorb heat, so 185-190 deg F is not uncommon from a fresh pot, especially so for a pour-over made in a light, insulated cup. I much prefer fresh coffee over stuff that’s lingered on a hot plate, so hot is an excellent sign of great coffee. Be careful out there. Not putting a flimsy cup between your legs is just common sense, which sadly is increasingly uncommon.


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

No joke, I used to really like the McDonald's oatmeal. Now it's served like a cold malt warmed in the sun.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

Cleared2land said:


> Okay, let's see how long it takes before this gets the mods attention.


For what? Going just a bit off-topic? 



TwiceHorn said:


> If I have gone overly "political," then I apologize.


I don't see that you have at all.

Seems like a good thread to me.
Of course, not everyone is in lockstep with their opinions, but everyone's been civil and we've even managed to stay reasonably close to the subject material. 
Guess even that's too much for some people to deal with. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

jimglassford said:


> I think most of the world would disagree with you. Do most people who injury themselves look for someone to sue?


I think post #213 is for you.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

One other data point that should be considered. The giant corporations understand that lawsuits, of all kinds, are a cost of doing business.

And they will very deliberately spend far more in attorneys fees defending cases than the amount in controversy for various reasons. If the cost of these lawsuits was doing serious damage to their bottom line, they could settle them far more cheaply than they purposely defend them, and sometimes get absolutely tagged by a jury. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

For smaller businesses, who should but don't consider lawsuits a cost of doing business, dubious lawsuits are of more concern. As in the recent case of the ski resort/bike park that shut down its bike operations as a result of a lawsuit. But we hashed that out pretty thoroughly, and what appeared to be a dubious lawsuit maybe wasn't so much. It does suck for the ski resort and its patrons, though.

So, there are some subtleties to the whole mess, and one-size fits all solutions like most "tort reform," based on erroneous information are no solution at all.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

I no longer remember the exact details of the McD case, but one key element was that they had been previously (and repeatedly) warned that 190deg was too hot a temp to be serving coffee for risk of burns.

I think suing for medical costs in this case was reasonable.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

190°, served in wimpy styrofoam cups, passed through a window by teenagers...700 injuries. 

There are a LOT of ridiculous payouts on ridiculous lawsuits, I'm not sure this was one of them..


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

chiefsilverback said:


> I think when you explain that there had been over 700 incidents involving McDonalds' scalding hot coffee, that they were in breach of safety guidelines, that the plaintiff suffered third degree burns require skins grafts as a result of McDonalds' negligence, that all she asked for was $20,000 to cover her medical cost and McDonalds refused, then most people would think this was a perfectly valid lawsuit. When they learn that the final settlement was a percentage of a single day of McDonalds' coffee sales I don't think anyone would try to defend the Golden Arches!


Don't forget that they denied in court having settled any of those other cases...when they did. Caught lying.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

WHALENARD said:


> 190°, served in wimpy styrofoam cups, passed through a window by teenagers...700 injuries.
> 
> There are a LOT of ridiculous payouts on ridiculous lawsuits, I'm not sure this was one of them..


I might quibble with you about whether there really are a lot of ridiculous payouts on ridiculous lawsuits. There are a few examples here and there, and most often, like the McD case, they're not as ridiculous as portrayed.

And remember always, there are people and groups that are vitally interested in having you believe that there are lots of ridiculous lawsuits and ridiculous payouts.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

ballisticexchris said:


> How did this thread a deadly tragedy from a E-Bike turn into to spilling lukewarm McDonald's coffee in between some ladies legs?
> 
> My understanding she was looking to get a labia majora reduction surgery on McDonald's corps dime. It has to be true. I saw it on the internet.


Because some people want to judge based on emotion and incomplete facts. Even though we have good input here, we don't know all the details that will be laid out and discovered in court. To that extent, hopefully a reasonable person will realize that we can't actually determine if it is frivolous, we have to wait for that information. The "shoot from the hip"-crowd on the other hand, well, that's exactly why we are bringing this up. That's kind of the problem, deciding something is frivolous based on incomplete information. On the other hand, I read a few of the election lawsuits that were thrown out...basically laughed out, due to no actual evidence or evidence that doesn't meet evidentiary standards. It seems that yes, there are cases that go forward without proper vetting by a lawyer, in other words, a lawyer takes it knowing full well they don't have the evidence to prove their side. That is a problem. But the other side is that citizens have the ability to go after companies and others that would seem otherwise to have impunity. Like Erin Brockovich stuff. It's a lot of power. Is this necessary in our legal system due to lax government control/regulation of so many areas of our daily life?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Dkayak said:


> The coffee industry consensus is brewed coffee is best made from water at 200 +/-5 deg F. Some temperture drop occurs as grounds and the carafe absorb heat, so 185-190 deg F is not uncommon from a fresh pot, especially so for a pour-over made in a light, insulated cup. I much prefer fresh coffee over stuff that’s lingered on a hot plate, so hot is an excellent sign of great coffee. Be careful out there. Not putting a flimsy cup between your legs is just common sense, which sadly is increasingly uncommon.


Try and chug that 190F coffee in one go and enjoy third degree burns to your mouth, throat and oesophagus.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

TwiceHorn said:


> And remember always, there are people and groups that are vitally interested in having you believe that there are lots of ridiculous lawsuits and ridiculous payouts.


Good point.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Canssago said:


> They did not change the coffee but added the label " contents may be hot". It is a stupid lawsuit. And because it was a big business it is OK to take their money? WTF?
> 
> How many incidents involve people being hurt by cars? Maybe we can sue car companies because of DUI's? How about some personal reasonability? Ride naked and when you hurt your schlong sue the saddle maker and make sure you bought it from Amazon because they make more money then other companies and deserve to pay out frivolous lawsuits.


They did change the coffee temperature, lowering it by 10-20 degrees (they previously required it be served at 190-200 degrees and dropped it to 180) which significantly lessens the possibility of severe burns.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

jimglassford said:


> McDonalds is definitely a case of the system running amok. If someone is severely burned at home from a cup of coffee they made themselves, should they sue their own insurance company? My neighbor has been riding mountain bikes for for over 40 years. Last year he hit a tree and broke a rib. Everyone felt sorry for him, he was in pain and he had medical bills. This meets all of the criteria for a law suit. Who should he sue?


Really, he has all the elements for a successful lawsuit? Please spell them out, as it seems he is missing necessary elements to allege negligence, product defect, breach of warranty, or breach of contract. What causes of action could he allege that would not be successfully demurred?


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

chiefsilverback said:


> Try and chug that 190F coffee in one go and enjoy third degree burns to your mouth, throat and oesophagus.


Yep, for sure. I’m not saying it’s ready to drink, only that this means it’s freshly brewed. If I order a pour-over at my local place, they’ll hand me the cup at this freshly brewed temperature. I’m fully capable of deciding when to sip it and knowing how to safely handle the cup. I don’t expect them to set it aside until it cools to a “safe” temperature.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

Here’s my helmet after a crash in June, when I snagged a tree with my bar end. Should I sue Fox for my ER visit with CT scan for concussion? Maybe sue Trek for those wide bars? No way. Personal responsibility. I’m the one who hit the tree.

What about the adults who put two middle schoolers on a 1 hp motorized cycle on a 20 degree road, unsupervised? I could easily hit 40 mph on that kind of incline, my personal speed limit.

Please don’t misunderstand. I’ve known parents who put their kids on dirt bikes at younger ages than these girls, first battery powered and then gas. They provided appropriate safety gear, including full face helmets and body armor. Most important, they supervised and trained them. The kids are awesome riders btw.


----------



## WHALENARD (Feb 21, 2010)

TwiceHorn said:


> I might quibble with you about whether there really are a lot of ridiculous payouts on ridiculous lawsuits. There are a few examples here and there, and most often, like the McD case, they're not as ridiculous as portrayed.
> 
> And remember always, there are people and groups that are vitally interested in having you believe that there are lots of ridiculous lawsuits and ridiculous payouts.


You're probably right, I've certainly not done my homework on the subject regardless. Reckon I was conflating some of the ridiculous legislation with lawsuits.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Dkayak said:


> Here’s my helmet after a crash in June, when I snagged a tree with my bar end. Should I sue Fox for my ER visit with CT scan for concussion? Maybe sue Trek for those wide bars? No way. Personal responsibility. I’m the one who hit the tree.


The fact that you're not dead/suffering a severe brain injury means the helmet did its job so why would you sue Fox? For the death of this young girl the parents are claiming that a defective design of the bike caused the crash, and a defective helmet resulted in their daughter's death.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

chiefsilverback said:


> The fact that you're not dead/suffering a severe brain injury means the helmet did its job so why would you sue Fox? For the death of this young girl the parents are claiming that a defective design of the bike caused the crash, and a defective helmet resulted in their daughter's death.


I crashed in dirt at about 12 mph. She crashed on tarmac at high speed. Roadies die of head injuries all the time. The real damage is the acceleration and deceleration slamming the brain around inside your skull. The helmet slows this a bit and of course greatly reduces skull damage, but there’s a limit to what it can be expected to do.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

chiefsilverback said:


> The fact that you're not dead/suffering a severe brain injury means the helmet did its job so why would you sue Fox? For the death of this young girl the parents are claiming that a defective design of the bike caused the crash, and a defective helmet resulted in their daughter's death.


The helmet thing is super unfortunate as I think that will be a hard sell to any jury, especially when representatives from Giro and whatever experts they chose to call (CSPC or Snell) come and indicate that helmets are designed to break and the coverage of the helmet will only prevent certain injuries. I hate that they want to sue the helmet company however if they use whatever outcome occurs to propagate the need for more coverage in helmets, especially for children, then I would consider it a win, I guess. Giro could release newer safer children's helmets, with coverage at the ears and back of the head. (Obviously I have no idea of that pathology of the child's death so just guessing).


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

rockcrusher said:


> Yeah, I get that too but the results of lawsuits are stupid things. Cold coffee because someone spilled it on themselves at a drivethru, "not for off road use" on Big Box mountain bikes because someone was injured off road, lawyer tabs on qr forks because someone forgot to tighten their qr one their bike.


I apologize for the McD's thing regarding coffee. My point wasn't that it was a disingenuous or frivolous lawsuit bit it was a lawsuit that changed how things were from that point forward. Similar to lawyer tabs on forks or air bag warnings on your sun visor, or do not eat on Tide Pods. Results from lawsuits from the lowest common denominator members of society can have serious impact to peoples lives to having none but being annoying to only being fodder for comedians and late night monologues. 

I feel like the results of this will be the middle ground. It won't stop kids riding ebikes, it won't stop parents from outfitting their kids with the wrong or inadequate helmets, it won't put Rad Power out of business, it won't make enforcement for underage ebike usage or even bike usage a thing. If we are lucky as someone else mentioned the parents are hopefully well off and will maybe funnel whatever settlement they get into their memorial foundation and use it to increase awareness of helmet usage for kids on bikes and the dangers of letting small children use heavy ebikes. That said they could also go full Mike Vanderman and use that settlement to fight ebikes and bike usage on roads in general. Depends on how radicalized they become and where they place that blame for the tragic and unfortunate death. 

They say they want to do this to prevent it from happening again, but essentially so did OJ.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

rockcrusher said:


> I apologize for the McD's thing regarding coffee. My point wasn't that it was a disingenuous or frivolous lawsuit bit it was a lawsuit that changed how things were from that point forward. Similar to lawyer tabs on forks or air bag warnings on your sun visor, or do not eat on Tide Pods. *Results from lawsuits from the lowest common denominator members of society can have serious impact to peoples lives to having none but being annoying to only being fodder for comedians and late night monologues.*
> 
> I feel like the results of this will be the middle ground. It won't stop kids riding ebikes, it won't stop parents from outfitting their kids with the wrong or inadequate helmets, it won't put Rad Power out of business, it won't make enforcement for underage ebike usage or even bike usage a thing. If we are lucky as someone else mentioned the parents are hopefully well off and will maybe funnel whatever settlement they get into their memorial foundation and use it to increase awareness of helmet usage for kids on bikes and the dangers of letting small children use heavy ebikes. That said they could also go full Mike Vanderman and use that settlement to fight ebikes and bike usage on roads in general. Depends on how radicalized they become and where they place that blame for the tragic and unfortunate death.
> 
> They say they want to do this to prevent it from happening again, but essentially so did OJ.


Excellent points. This article summarizes the lunacy around us. Product Liability: The Quest to Protect Us From Ourselves (insurancejournal.com) The result is warning labels like the ones below (from the above link) and owner's manuals that are 80% warnings and 20% how to use the device. 

Directions for the use of a collapsible baby stroller my wife and I purchased: *Step 1 – Remove baby.* (Did they really have to write this? My wife and I figured it out right off, when it wouldn’t close properly.)

Hair dryer warnings:

*Do not use while bathing*_._(But it’s such a timesaver)
*If dryer falls into water, do not reach into water.* (What do they expect me to do, unplug it?)
*Do not use near or place in water.*_ (_You are in the bathroom for goodness sake).
*Do not use while sleeping.* (I don’t know how many times I’ve awakened styling my hair.)
Warning on a bag of cotton balls: *Warning-Flammable!* (Glad they told me, I won’t use them to put out that fire my hair dryer caused.)

Inflatable mattress warnings:

*Do not step or jump on bed or use as a trampoline.* (Boy, are my kids gonna be disappointed.)
Amazingly, it did *not *say that it was not a floatation or life saving device, so I guess it…whoops, it does say:_ *Do not use around water*._
Curling Irons are dangerous, too:

*Warning: This product can burn eyes*_._(Well, how do you curl your hair?)
*For External Use Only!* (Ummmm…)
Electric rotary drill: *“This product not intended for dental use.”* (What, does it void the warranty?)

As printed on a cardboard automobile sunshield: *“Do not drive with sunshield in place.*_” _(How do they expect me to keep the sun out of my eyes?)

Found on bottle of mildew remover: *Use only in well ventilated area*_._ (If it were well ventilated, there wouldn’t be mildew.)

Superhero costume warns: *Cape does not enable wearer to fly.* (“It says whaaaaa” (thump!!))

Plastic bags used to protect clothes until you get them home from the dry cleaners: *This bag is not a toy. Please discard. Keep away from small children.*(And my favorite warning) *Do not place in baby crib.*(Kids just aren’t allowed to learn the hard way anymore.)

On a clothes iron: *Do not iron clothes while on body.*(Unless you like the smell of burning flesh.)

On a package of firecrackers: *Waning: Explosive!* (If they weren’t, we’d sue the manufacturer for that.)

Seen on a bottle rocket package: *Do not put in mouth! *(Words preceding this stunt,”Hey, watch this.”)


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Dkayak said:


> Seen on a bottle rocket package: *Do not put in mouth! *(Words preceding this stunt,”_Let me finish my drink and show you something_”)


Fixed it for you.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Dkayak said:


> Yep, for sure. I’m not saying it’s ready to drink, only that this means it’s freshly brewed.* If I order a pour-over at my local place, they’ll hand me the cup at this freshly brewed temperature.* I’m fully capable of deciding when to sip it and knowing how to safely handle the cup. I don’t expect them to set it aside until it cools to a “safe” temperature.


I don't think it will be 190+ degrees by the time they hand it to you.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

kapusta said:


> I don't think it will be 190+ degrees by the time they hand it to you.


Pay, prepared in paper cup (low mass), and handed directly to me. Probably close to 190. I used to make them at home that way. Safe enough.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Dkayak said:


> Pay, prepared in paper cup (low mass), and handed directly to me. Probably close to 190. I still feel safe.


In a car from 2 feet above you through a window?


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

rockcrusher said:


> . Giro could release newer safer children's helmets, with coverage at the ears and back of the head.


These as well as full-face helmets are widely available from all major helmet companies already.

The parents decided against them.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

smashysmashy said:


> In a car from 2 feet above you through a window?


But that wasn’t the cause was it. I can’t imagine putting the cup between my legs. Unimaginable.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Dkayak said:


> But that wasn’t the cause was it. I can’t imagine putting the cup between my legs. Unimaginable.


But you weren't in a car. So not an applicable scenario.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

slapheadmofo said:


> These as well as full-face helmets are widely available from all major helmet companies already.
> 
> The parents decided against them.


Oh agreed. I just am saying an increase in education and/or availability of a safer helmet. That is usually the result of things like this, removal of the less safe option and addition of a safer option. Sure they will be hotter or less comfortable to kids with long hair or whatever but if the suit is successful it would set a precedent allowing others to sue a helmet maker for damages in the case of injury or death so they would want to pivot to a more litigation proof option I would think. 

I am kinda surprised that helmet makers don't require you to sign a waiver when purchasing a helmet, though there are always those documents in the helmet box, which usually has some text in it that might just state this (By purchasing this helmet you are acknowledging that cycling is dangerous, etc, etc), I don't think I have ever looked at those documents. Hell the parents might have not either. If that is the case I suspect that this will be a short event for Giro.

Does anyone know if there are these docs in a helmet? I literally bought like 3 helmets this year and just threw that documentation directly into the recycle bin.


----------



## fos'l (May 27, 2009)

jimglassford said:


> McDonalds is definitely a case of the system running amok. If someone is severely burned at home from a cup of coffee they made themselves, should they sue their own insurance company? My neighbor has been riding mountain bikes for for over 40 years. Last year he hit a tree and broke a rib. Everyone felt sorry for him, he was in pain and he had medical bills. This meets all of the criteria for a law suit. Who should he sue?


The tree obviously; what the hell was it doing in his way?


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Dkayak said:


> Pay, prepared in paper cup (low mass), and handed directly to me. Probably close to 190. I used to make them at home that way. Safe enough.


No, it is not close to 190. At that high a temp, things cool off 10 degrees very quickly. Just in the time the second half of the pour over gets through, the first half has cooled a lot. Heck, the coffee is probably not over 190 deg (if that) as it drips into the cup.

In order to serve it at 190-200 like McDs was specifying, you need to store the coffee (pre-brewed) VERY hot, then pour it quickly into a highly insulated container (syrofoam cup) and hand it off.

McD was serving the coffee much hotter than it needs to be and was previously warned that this was dangerous.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Dkayak said:


> Electric rotary drill: *“This product not intended for dental use.”* (What, does it void the warranty?)


My wife once used a Dremel to smooth a slight rough spot on one of her teeth, she might have had a few drinks before she made that decision.


> Superhero costume warns: *Cape does not enable wearer to fly.* (“It says whaaaaa” (thump!!))


 This may be true, but large patio umbrellas make workable parachutes!



> On a clothes iron: *Do not iron clothes while on body.*(Unless you like the smell of burning flesh.)


When my sister was young she tried to iron a handkerchief, she put the handkerchief on the ironing board, put her hand on the handkerchief, and put the hot iron on her hand!


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

kapusta said:


> I don't think it will be 190+ degrees by the time they hand it to you.


Water takes a lot of energy to change temp, so it doesn't cool down or heat up fast at all. In a foam cup...well, the point is to keep it that way. With a small amount though it's ability is significantly affected by it's contact area with the air and other surfaces, but straight into a foam cup...When I use my vacuum flask in the winter time, temps like -20, my hot chocolate is too hot to drink for the first 4 hours or more, I have to set it in a cup or something and let the snow cool it down, so I can definitely see super-hot coffee not losing a lot of temp and being close to 190 by the time it gets to the user. I boil my stuff and put it straight into the vacuum flask.

That also brings some liability as to the cup and lid, in terms of how secure they are. If you are handing something out to a car, that lid needs to fit pretty well and not leak under the normal handing that you would expect it to go under, like tilting it so the lid has to keep the liquid in at a reasonable angle, like 10-20° or whatever. You can think of a cascade effect if a loose lid is on there and it's handed to someone, sloshes out a bit of 190 degree liquid just because of handling, then you get burned and you drop it because of the initial pain as an automatic reaction...creating much worse burning and pain. So for the intended purpose (drive-through) it needs to be a suitable cup/lid system and they have to have adequate measures to assure the lid is always fixed tightly. I'm not saying any certain cup is not, but it's a great example of where there could be negligence if these were not taken into account by the business. The purchaser is going to expect that the product is suitable for the use.


----------



## DeoreDX (Jul 28, 2007)

Jayem said:


> I can definitely see super-hot coffee not losing a lot of temp and being close to 190 by the time it gets to the user.


Curious I just did an experiment.

My pot brews at 195. By the time it drips down hits the carafe then it poured into my mug it is in the mid to low 170s. Most people would find 170+ unacceptably hot and undrinkable. After 2 minutes the temp had dropped below 160 which is a drinkable hot. This is based on an experiment I just did using a thermopen and my Ember mug brewed from my Ninja coffee bar.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Jayem said:


> Water takes a lot of energy to change temp, so it doesn't cool down or heat up fast at all.


Yes, it does take a lot of energy loss, but the higher the tempurature difference between two things, the faster the heat transfer. Look at the formula and it becomes obvious. In a 75 degree room, water will cool 10 degrees MUCH faster at high temps than at lower temps. Try this: pour boiling water in a cup with a thermometer and see how fast it drops from 210 to 200 vs 110 to 100.



Jayem said:


> so I can definitely see super-hot coffee not losing a lot of temp and being close to 190 by the time it gets to the user. I boil my stuff and put it straight into the vacuum flask.


Yes, if you start with scalding hot coffee in a heated storage container and pour it into a styrofoam cup, it will be 190+ when you hand it off.... which is why you should not do that.

The quote you are responding to from me was relating to a pourover into a paper cup.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

I was due for my mid-day coffee, so I decided to do some measuring: I did a pour-over using water straight from the boiling kettle (hotter than coffee is typically brewed at). I pre-warmed the cup with boiling water. Temperature within seconds of the cup filling was 176 F.

Any coffee shop doing pour over would be using water roughly 10 degrees cooler for the initial brew. 

It takes a concerted effort to serve a customer 190+ degree coffee.


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Jayem said:


> Water takes a lot of energy to change temp, so it doesn't cool down or heat up fast at all. In a foam cup...well, the point is to keep it that way. With a small amount though it's ability is significantly affected by it's contact area with the air and other surfaces, but straight into a foam cup...When I use my vacuum flask in the winter time, temps like -20, my hot chocolate is too hot to drink for the first 4 hours or more, I have to set it in a cup or something and let the snow cool it down, so I can definitely see super-hot coffee not losing a lot of temp and being close to 190 by the time it gets to the user. I boil my stuff and put it straight into the vacuum flask.
> 
> That also brings some liability as to the cup and lid, in terms of how secure they are. If you are handing something out to a car, that lid needs to fit pretty well and not leak under the normal handing that you would expect it to go under, like tilting it so the lid has to keep the liquid in at a reasonable angle, like 10-20° or whatever. You can think of a cascade effect if a loose lid is on there and it's handed to someone, sloshes out a bit of 190 degree liquid just because of handling, then you get burned and you drop it because of the initial pain as an automatic reaction...creating much worse burning and pain. So for the intended purpose (drive-through) it needs to be a suitable cup/lid system and they have to have adequate measures to assure the lid is always fixed tightly. I'm not saying any certain cup is not, but it's a great example of where there could be negligence if these were not taken into account by the business. The purchaser is going to expect that the product is suitable for the use.


As I recall from that era the foam cups they used were quite soft. I remember playing with them because they would take pen well and you could mark them up into characters with a ball point easily. The lids were typical plastic hat lids. I can't recall but if she put it between her legs (as cup holders were not ubiquitous back then, especially if she was in an older car), then did anything with her legs it would easily have popped the lid and spilled the coffee.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

With regards to the McDonalds coffee case, the effects of the extremely hot liquid were exacerbated because they coffee soaked into the victims clothing and was held against her skin, so it would like submerging her hand in a pot of boiling water vs having some splash over her...


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

chiefsilverback said:


> With regards to the McDonalds coffee case, the effects of the extremely hot liquid were exacerbated because they coffee soaked into the victims clothing and was held against her skin, so it would like submerging her hand in a pot of boiling water vs having some splash over her...


As an ex-chef I can totally understand this. Spilling boiling water on my chef baggies more than once and luckily they are baggy for a reason, you just pull the fabric away from your skin and you barely get a burn. Can't imagine against tight pants, though. Spilled hot water in my clog once too, that hurt a lot more.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

smashysmashy said:


> But you weren't in a car. So not an applicable scenario.


Let me put it this way. I would never put a paper/styrofoam cup between my legs, not even with cold liquid but certainly not with hot liquid. The risk is obvious.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Dkayak said:


> The risk is obvious.


To you.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

kapusta said:


> I was due for my mid-day coffee, so I decided to do some measuring: I did a pour-over using water straight from the boiling kettle (hotter than coffee is typically brewed at). I pre-warmed the cup with boiling water. Temperature within seconds of the cup filling was 176 F.
> 
> Any coffee shop doing pour over would be using water roughly 10 degrees cooler for the initial brew.
> 
> It takes a concerted effort to serve a customer 190+ degree coffee.


Right, but I'm not sure anyone said she was *served* coffee at 190 deg, only that McD's poured coffee from their caraffe at that temperature. You've just made the argument that even that would have cooled a substantial but unknown amount before she spilled it on herself. So 180, 170, 160, who knows for sure? More experiments needed guys. Get a McD cup and try it? 

It's really an engineering problem in which the cup mass, material, temperature, and specific heat determine the outcome. A Styrofoam cup is least likely to cool the coffee (both low mass and low specific heat). This is why I always preheat my heavy ceramic mug and why you preheat a thermos before filling it. The coffee grounds pull relatively little heat out of the water during brewing (low mass compared to the water's mass). My personal expectation is good fresh drip coffee will be too hot to drink immediately after brewing and will require careful handling. Obviously that's not what everybody expects. Rules are adjusted to protect the least cautious among us, hence the goofy warnings I posted. There's probably a foolish story behind each of those.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

smashysmashy said:


> To you.


Or to anyone who's ever crumpled a paper cup.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Dkayak said:


> Right, but I'm not sure anyone said she was *served* coffee at 190 deg, only that McD's poured coffee from their caraffe at that temperature.


I guess no one knows the exact temperature the coffee was when it poured into her lap, but if McDonalds were holding it at 190F, poured it into a styrofoam cup, handed it to the customer who then promptly spilled it, the temp can only have dropped a few degrees, although it's kind of academic because regardless of the exact temp it was hot enough to cause severe burns.

Just to clarify for those who aren't sure, the victim was the passenger, they got her coffee and her grandson pulled into a parking space so she could add cream and/or sugar. That's when she put the cup between her legs...


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

chiefsilverback said:


> I guess no one knows the exact temperature the coffee was when it poured into her lap, but if McDonalds were holding it at 190F, poured it into a styrofoam cup, handed it to the customer who then promptly spilled it, the temp can only have dropped a few degrees, although it's kind of academic because regardless of the exact temp it was hot enough to cause severe burns.
> 
> Just to clarify for those who aren't sure, the victim was the passenger, they got her coffee and her grandson pulled into a parking space so she could add cream and/or sugar. That's when she put the cup between her legs...


Meaning the lid had been removed. Very risky business unless you place it on the floor first.


----------



## kapusta (Jan 17, 2004)

Dkayak said:


> Right, but I'm not sure anyone said she was *served* coffee at 190 deg, only that McD's poured coffee from their caraffe at that temperature. You've just made the argument that even that would have cooled a substantial but unknown amount before she spilled it on herself.


There policy was to SERVE it between 190 and 200. Poured straight into a styrofoam cup, not dripped. There would not be anywhere near the cooling that a pour-over experiences. Your local coffee shop does not serve coffee anywhere near that hot even when serving straight from a warming carafe. Because that is way too hot, and sensible people understand that

Again, they were WARNED previously that they were serving it too hot.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Dkayak said:


> Or to anyone who's ever crumpled a paper cup.


You are making the assumption everyone knows what you know.

These situations prove that they do not.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

smashysmashy said:


> You are making the assumption everyone knows what you know.
> 
> These situations prove that they do not.


Obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't have warnings like the ones I shared on post 253. Who doesn't know these? Really? Hair dryer warnings:

*Do not use while bathing*_._(But it’s such a timesaver)
*If dryer falls into water, do not reach into water.* (What do they expect me to do, unplug it?)
*Do not use near or place in water.*_ (_You are in the bathroom for goodness sake).
*Do not use while sleeping.* (I don’t know how many times I’ve awakened styling my hair.)
And owner's manuals wouldn't be packed with obvious precautions. Common sense is no longer common.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Dkayak said:


> Obviously. Otherwise we wouldn't have warnings like the ones I shared on post 253. Who doesn't know these? Really? Hair dryer warnings:
> 
> *Do not use while bathing*_._(But it’s such a timesaver)
> *If dryer falls into water, do not reach into water.* (What do they expect me to do, unplug it?)
> ...


if you assume you are average, that means 50% of people are WAY dumber than you.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

smashysmashy said:


> if you assume you are average, that means 50% of people are WAY dumber than you.


I remind myself daily 50% of people are of below average intelligence. That is why I read MTBR, it is closer to 25%. Pinkbike, about 75%.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

For the sake of clarity, I'm not suggesting the people involved here (mcdonalds case or the parents in the story of this thread) are dumb, just that when you talk about liability, you just cannot assume everyone "should know better".


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

smashysmashy said:


> For the sake of clarity, I'm not suggesting the people involved here (mcdonalds case or the parents in the story of this thread) are dumb, just that when you talk about liability, *you just cannot assume everyone "should know better".*


I guess we’ll disagree on that point. Most of us have done foolish things when we “should know better”, including me. I’ve done some things that were pretty dumb, especially in hindsight. I just don’t feel somebody else should pay for my poor judgement.

More people die taking selfies than from shark attacks, but I don’t feel we need to fence off the Grand Canyon and other scenic views.








Couple Falls to Death During Selfie at Same Yosemite Cliff as Viral Photo


A couple tragically plunged to their deaths while taking a selfie at Yosemite's Taft Point last week. The accident came just days after an engagement




petapixel.com


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

"More people die taking selfies than from shark attacks, but I don’t feel we need to fence off the Grand Canyon and other scenic views."

Now the litigious people would still insist it was Apples fault since there was not a warning message on the i-Phone listing all of the activities that would be dangerous while taking selfies. Maybe when you open the camera function on your phone or GoPro, there should be a 10 minute tutorial that cannot be bypassed and must be acknowledged on taking safer selfies.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Dkayak said:


> I guess we’ll disagree on that point. Most of us have done foolish things when we “should know better”, including me. I’ve done some things that were pretty dumb, especially in hindsight. I just don’t feel somebody else should pay for my poor judgement.


You are confusing your opinion with the law.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

jimglassford said:


> "More people die taking selfies than from shark attacks, but I don’t feel we need to fence off the Grand Canyon and other scenic views."
> 
> Now the litigious people would still insist it was Apples fault since there was not a warning message on the i-Phone listing all of the activities that would be dangerous while taking selfies. Maybe when you open the camera function on your phone or GoPro, there should be a 10 minute tutorial that cannot be bypassed and must be acknowledged on taking safer selfies.


Clearly you have never read the 300 pages of terms and conditions that you ageed to when you checked yes while setting up your iPhone.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

Cary said:


> Clearly you have never read the 300 pages of terms and conditions that you ageed to when you checked yes while setting up your iPhone.


Ever read the really scary stuff associated with renting skis and buying a lift ticket? Yes, you could die! I’ve been on two mountains with trails blocked ahead of me for fatalities. A buddy wrecked his shoulder on icy moguls. I still love tree skiing though.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Dkayak said:


> I guess we’ll disagree on that point. Most of us have done foolish things when we “should know better”, including me. I’ve done some things that were pretty dumb, especially in hindsight. I just don’t feel somebody else should pay for my poor judgement.
> 
> More people die taking selfies than from shark attacks, but I don’t feel we need to fence off the Grand Canyon and other scenic views.
> 
> ...


The problem here is perspective and perception. Whether we realize it or not, our perspectives and perceptions are wildly biased towards our own experiences. What is "obvious" to one person is not necessarily obvious to another, no matter how much we want it to be. These are basic learning and psychological principals. This is why when it goes to court, you have to prove these things. It might be reasonable to expect that someone should "have known better" on a subject after proving it...but it cannot be an assumption. And that proof can't be "well, because I know better".


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

Cary said:


> Clearly you have never read the 300 pages of terms and conditions that you ageed to when you checked yes while setting up your iPhone.


But if you read the original case filed against Radpower, the owners manual states that the Rad Power is for ages 18 and over, but this was in small print on page 49 so it doesn't count.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

Dkayak said:


> Ever read the really scary stuff associated with renting skis and buying a lift ticket? Yes, you could die! I’ve been on two mountains with trails blocked ahead of me for fatalities. A buddy wrecked his shoulder on icy moguls. I still love tree skiing though.


And yet, when I rent skis, the highest they'll put the DIN is 8, which caused the skis to pop out on a real steep slope at the resort due to flex. I fell at least 500' before being able to arrest. There is some liability there, maybe negligence, I understand that they may not be able to go higher for fear of breaking legs and stuff with over-inflated skill levels, but then there should be additional controls or warnings to let people know that this DIN is not suitable for expert terrain or the terrain at the resort. I told them I was an expert, they set up the skis. My assumption is that I can go ski the entire mountain on the skis they just set up for me. It did not include any warnings about "stay off this terrain, because we set the bindings too low". While this probably hasn't been explored yet, it could be and I think there could be a case made for it. Same with bike resorts setting people up on suspension that is tuned incorrectly. Like too stiff or too soft of a spring or damping way off. This creates a hazard and the bike doesn't react like it is supposed to. Some of this is just due to lazy resorts that won't actually stock a variety of springs on their rental fleet (why I like air shocks for DH rentals), but knowingly setting someone up on something that is not adjusted correctly is wrong and I'm sure there are plenty of people that don't understand this or the negative consequences you could have. Loose control in some sections and the outcome will be severe injury, if not death. Finding the resort set them up with the wrong spring rate and that it can lead to loss of control (like rear end kicking up on jumps) will look real bad. If it's too much trouble to set you up on the correct spring, then maybe they shouldn't be renting bikes. I've gotten away from renting these bikes for the most part, but when I did, I would write on the signature waiver that it is not set up correctly.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

jimglassford said:


> But if you read the original case filed against Radpower, the owners manual states that the Rad Power is for ages 18 and over, but this was in small print on page 49 so it doesn't count.


Read the complaint, I am possibly the only person here who has downloaded it and read the entire thing (and posted portions of it). Want a copy?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

jimglassford said:


> But if you read the original case filed against Radpower, the owners manual states that the Rad Power is for ages 18 and over, but this was in small print on page 49 so it doesn't count.


You have to affirm that you have read and understand Apple's Ts & Cs, so maybe the outcome of this is that when you buy a bike you will have to do the same...


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

jimglassford said:


> But if you read the original case filed against Radpower, the owners manual states that the Rad Power is for ages 18 and over, but this was in small print on page 49 so it doesn't count.


If Radpower was serious about that warning, don't you think maybe they should put it a little more prominently? And maybe stop advertising with children riding them front and rear?

Or maybe that might cut into sales . . . .

Right or wrong, a likely majority of adults see bicycles as children's toys. Bike sellers probably know this better than anyone. And probably their only purchase consideration, besides price, is whether a child will fit on it or not.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

Jayem said:


> The problem here is perspective and perception. Whether we realize it or not, our perspectives and perceptions are wildly biased towards our own experiences. What is "obvious" to one person is not necessarily obvious to another, no matter how much we want it to be. These are basic learning and psychological principals. This is why when it goes to court, you have to prove these things. It might be reasonable to expect that someone should "have known better" on a subject after proving it...but it cannot be an assumption. And that proof can't be "well, because I know better".


But of course the product says for ages 18 and over, right?


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

ocnLogan said:


> I have some nephews who live in a really, really affluent area. And pretty much all of the kids there (ages 8-14) go all over the place on ebikes, and escooters that their parents have provided for them. My nephew was telling me that some of his friends have put 2000 miles on their ebikes since they got them this year just in the neighborhood.


That describes my neighborhood. There's an increasingly large group of middle school aged kids who have powerful throttle-driven e-bikes zipping in and out of traffic at speed. Normally I would love to see more kids on bikes but these kids are really unpredictable. I'm betting that they don't have a good grasp (any grasp?) of traffic rules. When you move with traffic at the speed of a car then hop onto a sidewalk then cross a parking lot other motorists get taken by surprise. I recently had a kid pop out from behind a building then cross about 10' in front of me as I was driving through a parking lot -- didn't even look over to see me. No helmet, of course. I question the wisdom of their parents.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

I looked at Rad Powers web site and I could not find where they show a bike with a child in the drivers seat. Did they recently make a change?


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

I still don't understand the age 'limit' that Rad power have? Commencal make a kids emtb, and there are all manner of electric kids 'vehicles' from PowerWheels through electric scooters etc... Kids also ride dirt bikes and ATVs, I've seen 4 and 5 year olds in full riding gear on mini dirt bikes with training wheels, riding public trails (where dirt bikes are allowed), so why the hoohar over an 11 or 12 year old riding an e-bike?

For me the issue in this case is that the bike in question wasn't a well designed bike with small wheels and insufficient brakes, but maybe they didn't intend for it to be ridden down a 20% hill?


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

smashysmashy said:


> You are confusing your opinion with the law.


Not really, just sharing my personal values re: the continuum ranging from personal responsibility to negligence. There's no right or wrong here, but opinions will surely shape the outcome. At trial the plaintiff will argue for negligence while the defense will argue for lack of personal responsibility. The result will be based on the opinions of twelve people, informed by the law and arguments from both sides. If you're the plaintiff, you probably don't want an engineer like me on the jury, LOL.

About 30 years ago a colleague was on a jury for a trial in which a young man was accused of murder, allegedly by beating his girlfriend's child. The jury was deeply divided until my friend suggested they be allowed to view the autopsy photos, which led to a guilty verdict. I've read that it can be risky to seat engineers on a jury, depending on the particular case and evidence, because they tend to focus on facts and data vs emotional appeals. Of course, the same is true in different respects for other professions. In the end you get twelve opinions or interpretations of the evidence presented for comparison to the law. The result can be very dependent on jury selection, which both sides have the opportunity to influence.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

Dkayak said:


> Ever read the really scary stuff associated with renting skis and buying a lift ticket? Yes, you could die! I’ve been on two mountains with trails blocked ahead of me for fatalities. A buddy wrecked his shoulder on icy moguls. I still love tree skiing though.


All they really need for the ski stuff is to say: "Google Sonny Bono before executing your release."


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

> For me the issue in this case is that the bike in question wasn't a well designed bike with small wheels and insufficient brakes, but maybe they didn't intend for it to be ridden down a 20% hill?


We don't know that the bike wasn't well designed. That is the opinion of a so called expert paid for by the plaintiffs. 

In another thread on this site, a person was asking about what bike to buy for exercise. That person wanted to lose weight as they were 300 pounds, if I remember correctly. All of the arm chair engineers here stated all of their recommendations based on their experience. I kept insisting that the person go to a LBS and get their input and recommendations. Now, if that rider purchased an older steel frame bike, like was recommended by a lot of bloggers, and was at the top of a hill with a 20 degree slope. On the way down, he loses control and the brakes will not stop over 300 pounds. This person was over 18 and the bike does not have a motor. So the widow needs to file a law suit against the bike manufacturer because they should have known a 300 pound person would ride it, the helmet manufacturer, the clothing manufacturer since they should have known a person riding a bike may crash and the clothes did not protect the rider. On top of that, sue the city for having a hill that entices bicyclers to coast down the hill. Lets not leave out the subpoena issued to MTBR for the actual names of those who gave advise on which bike to purchase so they are named in the $100 million law suite.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

jimglassford said:


> So the widow needs to file a law suit against the bike manufacturer because they should have known a 300 pound person would ride it, the helmet manufacturer


But this is exactly why bikes have weight limit labels on them. You are trying to make something completely legitimate sound silly to prop up an invalid point of view.

The bike in question in this thread needs to be built in a way that is in line with the usage they advertise.

Every walmart "mountain bike" literally has a big yellow sticker that says DO NOT USE OFF ROAD | DO NOT JUMP | DO NOT RIDE ON STEEP INCLINES. This is to define the usage. Go outside that usage, they are not at fault. Inside their usage and it fails, they may be at fault depending on the type of failure.

So, someone will need to examine the literature, owners manual, advertising etc of the e bike, and compare that to the actual realistic capabilities of the bike. It not so much about being "well built" as being fit for purpose and weather the usage was outside that purpose.


For example, I buy a suntour XCM fork and do an enduro run and it snaps. That's on me. The fork clearly states that it not it's purpose. On the other hand if a buy a pike DJ and do some dirt jumping and it snaps, SRAM might potentially be liable, because that is the intended advertised purpose of the fork.


----------



## Jayem (Jul 16, 2005)

smashysmashy said:


> But this is exactly why bikes have weight limit labels on them. You are trying to make something completely legitimate sound silly to prop up an invalid point of view.
> 
> The bike in question in this thread needs to be built in a way that is in line with the usage they advertise.
> 
> ...


There's more to it though. A company doesn't get a free pass just because they "put a sticker on it". Other aspects like the marketing, advertising and other design intent has to be considered. Like did they "copy" the appearance of products that ARE intended to go off-road? How obvious is this all (which again can vary widely). If I design a walmart bike to look like a DH mountain bike with dual crowns, put "extreme" and "DH" stickers on it, but also put a "not for offroad use" sticker on it, at the very least it's a contradiction. At the most, they are willfully trying to mislead people for sales, which will lead to injures during usage. Realizing of course those of us that pay 10K for a "mountain bike" are a pretty elite group and most people buying a bike at walmart are not in this group.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

"But this is exactly why bikes have weight limit labels on them." - I Just checked my EPIC and Scalpel, neither have a label with the weight limits. 

"Every walmart "mountain bike" literally has a big yellow sticker that says DO NOT USE OFF ROAD | DO NOT JUMP | DO NOT RIDE ON STEEP INCLINES." - But the manufacturer designed a bike that they knew would be used off road so they are 100% at fault.

In the case of the original Radpower case, the owners manual states 18 years old. What do you lawyers say, but it was not printed large enough or in the correct place.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Jayem said:


> There's more to it though. A company doesn't get a free pass just because they "put a sticker on it". Other aspects like the marketing, advertising and other design intent has to be considered. Like did they "copy" the appearance of products that ARE intended to go off-road? How obvious is this all (which again can vary widely). If I design a walmart bike to look like a DH mountain bike with dual crowns, put "extreme" and "DH" stickers on it, but also put a "not for offroad use" sticker on it, at the very least it's a contradiction. At the most, they are willfully trying to mislead people for sales, which will lead to injures during usage. Realizing of course those of us that pay 10K for a "mountain bike" are a pretty elite group and most people buying a bike at walmart are not in this group.


Oh absolutely, there's more to it than just the sticker, but these other peoples are saying sticker or not, advertising or not "should have known better" which is not a legal defense.


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

jimglassford said:


> "But this is exactly why bikes have weight limit labels on them." - I Just checked my EPIC and Scalpel, neither have a label with the weight limits.


Sorry, meant that it's in the manual. I know this cause my friend is 300ish lbs, 6'7 and noone wanted to sell him a bike.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

From claim 18, "_, failing to adequately warn about the dangers of children operating e-bikes".

I'm assuming, the lawyer parents would also need to be warned of the danger of giving whiskey and their car keys to a 12 year old. _


----------



## Varaxis (Mar 16, 2010)

I heard that TVs are shipping with warnings that say:

Must be plugged in to use. Do not immerse in water. Do not turn on side.

I took it as a sign of new generations of people, who were raised with smart phones, developing a different kind of common sense.


----------



## chiefsilverback (Dec 20, 2019)

Varaxis said:


> I heard that TVs are shipping with warnings that say:
> 
> Do not turn on side.


if I don’t turn it on its side then two thirds of the screen is black when I watch all the stuff I film on my phone!


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Varaxis said:


> I heard that TVs are shipping with warnings that say:
> 
> Must be plugged in to use. Do not immerse in water. Do not turn on side.
> 
> I took it as a sign of new generations of people, who were raised with smart phones, developing a different kind of common sense.


Don’t “kids these days“ all watch YouTube/Netflix/whatever on their phone or laptop? I didn’t know that they sit in front of a television anymore.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

Varaxis said:


> I took it as a sign of new generations of people, who were raised with smart phones, developing *a different kind of common sense*.


Here’s a futuristic movie about it.. 








Idiocracy (2006) - IMDb


Idiocracy: Directed by Mike Judge. With Luke Wilson, Maya Rudolph, Dax Shepard, Terry Crews. Private Joe Bauers, a decisively average American, is selected as a guinea pig for a top-secret hibernation program but is forgotten, awakening to a future so incredibly moronic he's easily the most...




www.imdb.com


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

No one is saying that the parents SHOULD have filed a lawsuit.

Or that Radpower SHOULD lose the case.

Lawsuits are always only an option.

But, substantial questions as to the safety of the bikes, particularly in the hands of young riders, and Radpower's marketing have been raised, by both the lawsuit itself and posters on the forum.

The only way to resolve those questions is by filing such a lawsuit.

You are free to argue that perhaps the parents SHOULD NOT have filed the lawsuit. Even I, an ardent defender of the American right to sue, questioned whether this was an overall good thing to do given the emotional toll it is sure to take on the parents.

But when you start arguing or insinuating that their right or ability to sue should be curtailed or eliminated entirely, I think you are grievously wrong and probably don't understand the ramifications of your argument.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

I didn’t see anyone argue they shouldn’t have a *right* to sue. What you’re reading are arguments that the parents should have known better than to put twelve year olds out on the street unsupervised on a 1 hp motorized cycle. Common sense and personal responsibility vs the ‘somebody else must be at fault’ mentality. Wiser generations didn’t sue when the root cause was staring back in the mirror. They made what many of us see as an obvious bad decision, with tragic consequences.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

Dkayak said:


> I didn’t see anyone argue they shouldn’t have a *right* to sue. What you’re reading are arguments that the parents should have known better than to put twelve year olds out on the street unsupervised on a 1 hp motorized cycle. Common sense and personal responsibility vs the ‘somebody else must be at fault’ mentality. Wiser generations didn’t sue when the root cause was staring back in the mirror. They made what many of us see as an obvious bad decision, with tragic consequences.


That may be true, and probably is.

But, as I have repeated, there are groups in this country that want people to feel that way and, in the end, to vote for laws and policies that restrict the right to sue, or the right to recover. And people that vote that way know not what they do.

Also, I think the idea the modern generations are pursuing more dubious litigation is mythical.

The law of negligence in this country really developed around railroad crossing accidents in the latter half of the 19th century, when such crossings were unmarked. Those cases all involved people crossing tracks with a steam locomotive barreling down on them.

Life is more complicated these days, and more kind of unusual injury scenarios arise from the various machines at our disposal, and from our increased leisure time and activities. There is also far more information about things such as lawsuits than in the past.


----------



## jimglassford (Jun 17, 2018)

socal_jack said:


> From claim 18, "_, failing to adequately warn about the dangers of children operating e-bikes".
> 
> I'm assuming, the lawyer parents would also need to be warned of the danger of giving whiskey and their car keys to a 12 year old. _


You have to be a mind reader. I was riding this morning and was thinking almost the same thing. My version is what if a 12 year old borrows the family car and crashes it into a pedestrian. The attorneys would not cash in on suing the 12 year old's parents do they file a law suit against GM because they did not equip the vehicle with a system preventing under age drivers. 

I was also wondering if this tragedy has happened to a different set of parents, would the headlines be different. "One inner city under age child killed and one injured while riding an e-bike. Parents of children charged with child endangerment."


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

Nat said:


> Don’t “kids these days“ all watch YouTube/Netflix/whatever on their phone or laptop? I didn’t know that they sit in front of a television anymore.


yeah, you wanna know how often lm reading my phone in bed, fall asleep only to have it fall on my face, and no warnings about that

but let me tell you, lm sueing someone over this.........

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

TwiceHorn said:


> But when you start arguing or insinuating that their right or ability to sue should be curtailed or eliminated entirely, I think you are grievously wrong and probably don't understand the ramifications of your argument.





Dkayak said:


> I didn’t see anyone argue they shouldn’t have a *right* to sue.


Me neither.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

jimglassford said:


> I was also wondering if this tragedy has happened to a different set of parents, would the headlines be different. "One inner city under age child killed and one injured while riding an e-bike. Parents of children charged with child endangerment."


Oh please.
No one cares enough about those kids to bother.
They're more likely to get run down by the police if they dare to pop a wheelie.







My son rides with this little guy every once in awhile.
I've seen him pull a full sized Harley straight up. 
I wonder what the owners manual says about that?


----------



## smashysmashy (Oct 18, 2013)

Aaaand were done here.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

smashysmashy said:


> Aaaand were done here.


Don't let the door hit ya...


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

Dkayak said:


> I didn’t see anyone argue they shouldn’t have a *right* to sue. What you’re reading are arguments that the parents should have known better than to put twelve year olds out on the street unsupervised on a 1 hp motorized cycle. Common sense and personal responsibility vs the ‘somebody else must be at fault’ mentality. Wiser generations didn’t sue when the root cause was staring back in the mirror. They made what many of us see as an obvious bad decision, with tragic consequences.




Oh, they did sue. Those little axle retaining things on the front axle of dept. store bikes are the result of a lawsuit filed by the parents of some kid that forgot to tighten the nuts on his front axle. You can imagine the results. The parents sued and won.


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

smashysmashy said:


> Aaaand were done here.


correct you are,
but others wont have it, they love watching a trainwreck........

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

cmg said:


> correct you are,
> but others wont have it, they love watching a trainwreck........
> 
> Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk


How hard is it really for you guys just to move on and not to keep coming back only to cry about what others decide to talk about?
You don't want to be part of a conversation, then just move the eff on and go about your business. Babies.


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

mmmm... we're babies, but funnily enough didnt resort to name calling

l would be involved in the converstion, but it has long moved on from the original topic

Sent from my SM-A515F using Tapatalk


----------



## ballisticexchris (Jun 14, 2016)

What the heck is going on here? The Trolling is coming out in force. Talk about adolescent posts. I think this thread ran its course when someone starts posting videos of squid children popping wheelies in tennis shoes. And the name calling. Really?


----------



## Fleas (Jan 19, 2006)

JSGN said:


> Must be a nightmare to be a company owner in USA when the smallest missuse of your product can cost you hundreds of millions of dollars.


For real.

This was a topic in my engineering curriculum: _Designing For Use and Mis-Use_

-F


----------



## rockcrusher (Aug 28, 2003)

Cary said:


> All they really need for the ski stuff is to say: "Google Sonny Bono before executing your release."


Or that Kennedy (during the same week not less as Bono) or Liam Nesson's wife or Michael Schumacher for just famous folks that suffered from skiing.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

JSGN said:


> Must be a nightmare to be a company owner in USA when the smallest missuse of your product can cost you hundreds of millions of dollars.


Yeah man. In my business, people expect perfect outcomes every single time. If the results are anything short of perfect then someone close to them will ask, "Are you going to talk to a lawyer?" Who the hell can bat 1.000 his whole career? That's why I'm insured out the wazoo. Have you looked into wazoo insurance lately? It's not cheap.


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

Nat said:


> Yeah man. In my business, people expect perfect outcomes every single time. If the results are anything short of perfect then someone close to them will ask, "Are you going to talk to a lawyer?" Who the hell can bat 1.000 his whole career? That's why I'm insured out the wazoo. Have you looked into wazoo insurance lately? It's not cheap.


Being sued out of existence is certainly a possiblity, but tends to be a remote one, especially if you are careful and purchase adequate insurance.

The tort reform types want you to believe that that is a bigger possibility than it really is, and if there were more examples of it, you can bet they'd let you know about them. Instead, they mostly misrepresent lawsuits against giant corporations.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Like this line, wonder what experts they are going to find to back this claim
The lawsuit claims the Rad Runner’s “disc brakes in conjunction with a quick-release mechanism for detaching the front wheel” is “a known safety hazard” in the bike industry.


----------



## JSGN (Feb 27, 2019)

Nat said:


> Yeah man. In my business, people expect perfect outcomes every single time. If the results are anything short of perfect then someone close to them will ask, "Are you going to talk to a lawyer?" Who the hell can bat 1.000 his whole career? That's why I'm insured out the wazoo. Have you looked into wazoo insurance lately? It's not cheap.


Insane is what it is. No one can. Its impossible.


----------



## Drew H. (Oct 6, 2017)

chiefsilverback said:


> You have to affirm that you have read and understand Apple's Ts & Cs, so maybe the outcome of this is that when you buy a bike you will have to do the same...


Apple doesn't even understand their terms and conditions....that why they keep updating them...😆


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Ikea made me sign a warning when we picked up a dresser from my son.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

TwoTone said:


> Ikea made me sign a warning when we picked up a dresser from my son.


Years ago I built a nice oak bookcase, about 6-1/2’ tall by 8’ wide. After some thought I attached it to the wall with an L-bracket because our son was only 5 years old. Who could I have sued if I hadn’t thought of the risk of kids trying to climb it? Life is full if risks. That’s why we’re given brains. I would never have planted him on an e-bike at age 12 either.


----------



## DtEW (Jun 14, 2004)

Road bikes heading towards using through-axles, but why? - CyclingTips


The recent introduction of road disc bikes is ushering in a variety of new technologies and “standards” that buyers must come to terms with. One of the more controversial refinements involves through-axle systems that complicate wheel changes and make things like fork-mounted roof racks and...




cyclingtips.com


----------



## TwiceHorn (Jun 18, 2014)

TwoTone said:


> Like this line, wonder what experts they are going to find to back this claim
> The lawsuit claims the Rad Runner’s “disc brakes in conjunction with a quick-release mechanism for detaching the front wheel” is “a known safety hazard” in the bike industry.


I'm virtually certain they have already consulted and retained experts. You may not agree with them. The defense will certainly have experts that disagree with them.


----------



## Octopuss (May 30, 2020)

lmao, Americans and their suing anyone over anything.


----------



## Dkayak (12 mo ago)

Octopuss said:


> lmao, Americans and their suing anyone over anything.


Surely somebody else can be held accountable for my poor judgement. It’s the American way.


----------



## Nat (Dec 30, 2003)

Octopuss said:


> lmao, Americans and their suing anyone over anything.


Better than shooting...


----------



## REZEN (Aug 7, 2020)

^Depends, it worked well for our liberty, and for those when the police are at best minutes away.

Anyway.
I think it is high time that any lawyer losing a case be punished the same as the defendant.


----------



## benjpi (Mar 25, 2020)

I own a RadPower bike; the earlier version before they revised the design for more trail. It is the sketchiest handling bike I have ridden. At low speeds it's not bad, but as you get up to 20 mph or more you really need to be paying attention. Outside of that, it seems to be one of the higher quality E-bikes sold as a "mass market" bike. I've had some other major and minor mass market E-bikes come through the shop -- where the customers have spent thousands of dollars -- that have components that would be more suited to $350 box-store bikes.


----------



## socal_jack (Dec 30, 2008)

As long as CA apparently refuses to enforce their own moped laws, its gonna happen.


----------



## Biking mum (Nov 21, 2021)

Im so sorry to hear the death of a child. The rise in e-bikes and the grey area of law around electric kids bikes isn't helping. So many parents don't insist on helmets being worn at all, which I find crazy.


----------



## jannmayer (10 mo ago)

Biking mum said:


> So many parents don't insist on helmets being worn at all, which I find crazy.


This I just don't understand. I see lots of kids with no helmets and at least as many with the helmet on the handlebars or unbuckled. Helmets are required in California for those under 18, but i don't know how often it's enforced.


----------



## bikesdirect (Nov 7, 2006)

This situation is so sad. It’s hard to even comment on.
But I have been shocked since the beginning to see eBike companies promoting the idea of pumping on a bike.
When selling BMX pegs in stores we tell the kids and parents, this is NOT for pumping on your bike.

I have ridden bikes for 66 years and motorcycles for 62 years, I think adding a passenger on your motorcycle is one thing that greatly increases risk. Passengers really effect the handling and safety of even a 350 lb motorcycle that is designed for it. A bicycle? Are you kidding? The impact on handling, braking, focus of rider, and safety is massive.

even tandem bikes, which I do not sell, require experienced stroker on the rear. Properly built tandems need special components including brakes. Plus tandems Are Built for two riders. I’ve ridden tandems of course, but will not again - either position drives me crazy.

last Note: last time I road one of my motorcycles with my GF on the rear, she honestly effected my control so much that I brought her a motor scooter the next week that she could ride with me. Riders on the rear of a motorcycle need to be trained and act as if they are controlling the motorcycle (because they are).

my advise, do not pump on your bike - electric or not.


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

What if you're at a pumptrack?


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> What if you're at a pumptrack?


soon to be renamed "Pedaltracks"


----------



## slapheadmofo (Jun 9, 2006)

cmg said:


> soon to be renamed "Pedaltracks"


"You're doing it wrong!!!"


----------



## cmg (Mar 13, 2012)

slapheadmofo said:


> "You're doing it wrong!!!"


you sound like my wife


----------

