Some of Todays parents of little kids have about mechanical knowledge as a toad......and less concern about something called parental responsibility
Buy cheap,throw away, get out the charge card I'm out of cash,"You want how much for that bike?" "I can get it cheaper at the chinese outlet store"

Some times I wonder if the kids are not "throw" away also
Your knowlege about these deficiencies of "Some of Todays parents of little kids" comes from which tabloid?
Any suggestions for resolving this "bicycling issue"? Do you also believe buying an overpriced bike for a child at an LBS is evidence of superior parenting skill?

Your knowlege about these deficiencies of "Some of Todays parents of little kids" comes from which tabloid?

Some of todays parents are my friends and neighbours. They're no different than the parents available when you were weaned. They are good and bad. The context of your sarcastic and standardly empty question in an answer implies you believe they are perfect these days?


Any suggestions for resolving this "bicycling issue"?

Why don't you have any? This issue is being resolved by the courts and legislation in place that demands a level of responsibility on the part of manufacturers and distributors and consumers. It could but probably won't lead to new standards for childrens bikes that remove all of the detritus of over-marketing. The useless imitation of high-end cycling products has done a disservice to childrens bikes. I was happy on my single speed, no suspension toystore bike when I was a child and I fail to see how children today would be disappointed in it.

Do you also believe buying an overpriced bike for a child at an LBS is evidence of superior parenting skill?

My father made sure my single-speed no suspension toystore bicycle was safe and taught me to maintain it. An example of the "superior parenting skill" you'll no doubt claim to have yourself. How will today's parents do anything of the like with a dual suspension 21 geared monstrosity? I'll tell you. They depend on the manufacture and proper assembly of the product, on laws to protect consumers, just as they were taught to.

It isn't the ideal situation such as the one I had as a child, but it's the Wal-Mart America answer....until something goes wrong.

Any suggestions for resolving this "bicycling issue"?
Why don't you have any? This issue is being resolved by the courts and legislation in place that demands a level of responsibility on the part of manufacturers and distributors and consumers.
Huh? The sarcasm was directed at the gross generalizations about the alleged deficiencies of "Some Parents" as evidenced by their purchase of bicycles at stores unapproved by the Lords of the LBS and/or Warriors of the Economic Counter Culture.

There is no bicycling issue here. The specific lawsuit brought up by the OP (tool of a law firm) will be resolved on its merits and reflects zilch on this so-called "bicycling issue".

There is no bicycling issue here. The specific lawsuit brought up by the OP (tool of a law firm) will be resolved on its merits and reflects zilch on this so-called "bicycling issue".


I beg to differ, product safety is a bicycling advocacy issue dealt with using many avenues including specific instances such as this court case. It was just a court case that brought us "lawyer tabs" built in to our front forks (they don't bother me, can't see the big deal there). Perhaps it could be another court case that did away with quick-release levers on bicycles specifically targeted at a child demographic. What? Wal-Mart doesn't sell cheap wrenches?

I beg to differ, product safety is a bicycling advocacy issue dealt with using many avenues including specific instances such as this court case. It was just a court case that brought us "lawyer tabs" built in to our front forks (they don't bother me, can't see the big deal there). Perhaps it could be another court case that did away with quick-release levers on bicycles specifically targeted at a child demographic. What? Wal-Mart doesn't sell cheap wrenches?

Yea, I have to agree with you on this point. I think this case has the potential to impact cycling. With any luck it will be a good impact. IMHO, with our court's and legislators respective track records, I'd say we have a 33/33/33 chance of a good outcome, bad outcome, or no affect on cycling at all. I choose to be optomistic and hope for a good outcome that results in families obtaining safer bicycles from X-Marts with only a minimal increase in price. Hey, I can wish!

Just speculating, but sounds like an example of an abuse of the legal system having to do with inappropriately styling cases as class actions. This has been done for years by plaintiffs' attorneys whose methods and appetites were wetted by class actiion litigation against cigarette manufacturers (an unintended consequence of legitimizing theft for a "noble" purpose).

Federal law was recently changed to help prevent a legal shakedown of all sorts of businesses. Even so, it still takes time and money to get to a point where a federal court is able to decide whether certifying a class is appropriate.

Businesses have to do whatever is necessary to prevent spurious claims from going to juries. Otherwise, a jury might "give the store away" to plaintiffs because tires on bikes, for example, are too narrow, e.g., failure to provide fatter tires is a design defect because, if tires were fatter, they wouldn't slide by the brakes if the axel nut was loose. :)

Just speculating, but sounds like an example of an abuse of the legal system having to do with inappropriately styling cases as class actions. This has been done for years by plaintiffs' attorneys whose methods and appetites were wetted by class actiion litigation against cigarette manufacturers (an unintended consequence of legitimizing theft for a "noble" purpose).

Federal law was recently changed to help prevent a legal shakedown of all sorts of businesses. Even so, it still takes time and money to get to a point where a federal court is able to decide whether certifying a class is appropriate.

Businesses have to do whatever is necessary to prevent spurious claims from going to juries. Otherwise, a jury might "give the store away" to plaintiffs because tires on bikes, for example, are too narrow, e.g., failure to provide fatter tires is a design defect because, if tires were fatter, they wouldn't slide by the brakes if the axel nut was loose. :)

I don't know about SoCal but in Texas tort reform has been an issue long, long before any tobacco companies were targeted. The dangers of ignoring consumer claims of injustice because they're represented by unscrupulous attorneys is readily apparant. A mistake made by a corporation resulting in harm shouldn't be brushed aside because a few have made successful claims that resulted in inappropriately large damages paid.

I'd put forth that businesses would prefer no claims are presented to juries or judges regardless of their merits. Perhaps they feel it's demanded of them by their stockholders.

Wal-Mart is the largest company in the world. There isn't much chance of the store being given away. Given their size and their influence, wouldn't you rather they had reacted in such a manner that could have prevented the possibility of a class action suit in federal court? Is it really these mothers and fathers wasting our tax money? Who among the parties involved had the absolute power to nip this problem in the bud? That is corporate responsibility and why it must be responsive. Encouraging a business culture of every man for himself, don't accept responsibility for anything and admit nothing is more dangerous to you and me than any individual living by the same rules.

Certainly it would be expensive to pull those bikes, tens of thousands of bikes, or provide ample unmistakable warning of the dangers of combining quick release levers and children. Then an adjustment in the buying dept could insure no such risk arises again, once more the cost of doing business, pay for your errors. How is that cost looking like now? Pretty good in comparison to a class action. Wal-Marts refusal to face an acceptable loss early in the game is what has propelled the issue this far. Wal-mart arranged the manufacture, assembly and sale of that product.

They made their bed, they'll make it again but hopefully with cleaner sheets next time.

We need a federal agency to regulate quick release levers to prevent them falling into the wrong hands. The LBS should be required to obtain a federal dealers license. There should be a federal form BQRL (Bureau of Quick Release Levers)4473 to be filled out in triplicate and kept with a bound log of all QR transfers, background checks should be conducted to make certain that the purchaser has nothing in their background which might indicate they would be the evil sort of person who would allow a minor to come in possession of a QR. A person should not be allowed to buy more than 2 QRs in any 12 month period. Private party QR transfers should be illegal to close the QR Show loop-hole. Mandatory QR training should be completed yearly to retain the privilege of being able to use a QR and a license for use on public streets required. We need buyback programs where people could dispose of unlicensed QR and get them off the street. QRs should be completely illegal except for law enforcement use within the District of Columbia.

Probably not, but it'd be a good solution easy to implement with no harm done to any players. The QR on childrens bikes are only there as marketing, most often only on the front wheel. The consumer would still have the option of purchasing and installing a QR. They couldn't claim ignorance then.

I think it's a pretty moderate solution and wouldn't require endless legislation or massive lost profits to the corporations or the loss of our civil liberties that previously included buying cheap childrens bikes with crappy QRs installed on stamped dropouts.

I know there should be something about alien mind control quick releases because this is the internet, but I just like uncomplicated solutions.

How about just plain ole responsibility to know your equipment & how it works........now theres a idea! For God sakes people...................quit claiming ignorance as a defense and the bedrock for a lawsuit. Try reading the damn instructions or even if you hate instructions, have someone knowledgable show you how it's done or works.

Off my soap box.....................now I am back with reality. I hear little voices in my head!

How about just plain ole responsibility to know your equipment & how it works........now theres a idea! For God sakes people...................quit claiming ignorance as a defense and the bedrock for a lawsuit. Try reading the damn instructions or even if you hate instructions, have someone knowledgable show you how it's done or works.

Off my soap box.....................now I am back with reality. I hear little voices in my head!

A good solid point that's often raised but that in this instace is stymied by the product and its marketing.

Next Ultra Shock bicycles with model numbers 8524-14WAL and 8526-20WAL and 8526-21(Target)

Promoted features:

Dual-suspension Series MTB bike
"V" Brakes (often labeled cantilever most appear to be linear pull)
Alloy Rims
18-speed index shifting with "Twist Shift"
Knobby racing off-road tires
Bar ends
Protective chainring bash guard
Protective cage for rear derailluer
Factory racing ATB suspension forks for a smooth ride
Dual-surface, padded saddle for extra comfort
Quick Release front wheel
Quick Release adjustable Seat Post

An example of the sales descriptions written for such bikes

"Take on the rockiest trails and toughest hills with this durable, stylish mountain bike. It features the 7005-series lightweight, durable aluminum frame and factory-racing ATB suspension forks to make the bumpiest rides smooth. Plus, special knobby tires provide extra control down rocky mountains."

However the messege recieved is "Childrens bike, $75.00" as these bikes are intended for the use of children only. Childrens bike like the ones they remember.

Parents pay as much attention to the features of this minor expenditure as they would to the Hot Wheels that brags of the torque of its V8 engine. Yet the features are ones that can baffle an experienced cyclist and keep an experienced wrench frustrated.

Absolutely your argument still stands, if they're going to spend that $75 they should know how to repair and maintain that bicycle or take it to a mechanic. Your argument though is an old fashioned one that doesn't have a place among the intentions of the seller, marketer and consumer. These three aren't on the same page at all.

A good solid point that's often raised but that in this instace is stymied by the product and its marketing.

Next Ultra Shock bicycles with model numbers 8524-14WAL and 8526-20WAL and 8526-21(Target)

Promoted features:

Dual-suspension Series MTB bike
"V" Brakes (often labeled cantilever most appear to be linear pull)
Alloy Rims
18-speed index shifting with "Twist Shift"
Knobby racing off-road tires
Bar ends
Protective chainring bash guard
Protective cage for rear derailluer
Factory racing ATB suspension forks for a smooth ride
Dual-surface, padded saddle for extra comfort
Quick Release front wheel
Quick Release adjustable Seat Post

An example of the sales descriptions written for such bikes

"Take on the rockiest trails and toughest hills with this durable, stylish mountain bike. It features the 7005-series lightweight, durable aluminum frame and factory-racing ATB suspension forks to make the bumpiest rides smooth. Plus, special knobby tires provide extra control down rocky mountains."



Interesting. Are you suggesting that the retailer is liable for reproducing the marketing literature of the manufacturer?

Interesting. Are you suggesting that the retailer is liable for reproducing the marketing literature of the manufacturer?

No, I'm saying that the promoted use of the product is misrepresented to an extent which can have the effect of causing parents to disregard the complexity and nature of the product altogether. The features of the bike DO matter in its safe use and maintanence. However as parents will be aware their children will not be crashing down mountain slopes or tackling even the rockiest terrain they can disregard these features as that's what they appear to be for.

The defense for this sort af advertising isn't "We're not lying" it's more like "We're not "not lying" but we aren't lying."

Many people would still place the blame squarely on the consumer to defend the advertisers rights. That's fine except the refusal to make a stand in individual instances where it's readily apparant there is misrepresentation. These bicycles are for sidewalks and flat or rolling unpaved surfaces. They cannot withstand mountain slopes or "the rockiest trail" If it were jewelry they'd catch hell for failing to use the word "faux". Sure it looks like a mountain bike, but it's a childrens bike made to resemble a mountain bike and that should be made clear.

That's not LBS snobbery, it's honesty. There doesn't need to be a "standard" when the target demographic belies the products intented use.

I'd like to know what the plaintiff's theory of liability is.

The theory is that Wal-Mart has a lot of money and the victims as yet, do not. For a huge fee and expenses amounting to most of the money collected, atorneys will get the plaintiffs some money. The rest of us will pay for it all. :mad:

No, I'm saying that the promoted use of the product is misrepresented to an extent which can have the effect of causing parents to disregard the complexity and nature of the product altogether. The features of the bike DO matter in its safe use and maintanence. However as parents will be aware their children will not be crashing down mountain slopes or tackling even the rockiest terrain they can disregard these features as that's what they appear to be for.

The defense for this sort af advertising isn't "We're not lying" it's more like "We're not "not lying" but we aren't lying."

Many people would still place the blame squarely on the consumer to defend the advertisers rights. That's fine except the refusal to make a stand in individual instances where it's readily apparant there is misrepresentation. These bicycles are for sidewalks and flat or rolling unpaved surfaces. They cannot withstand mountain slopes or "the rockiest trail" If it were jewelry they'd catch hell for failing to use the word "faux". Sure it looks like a mountain bike, but it's a childrens bike made to resemble a mountain bike and that should be made clear.

That's not LBS snobbery, it's honesty. There doesn't need to be a "standard" when the target demographic belies the products intented use.


So your answer is yes, you are holding the retailer liable for 'misrepresenting' the product because they reproduce the marketing material of the manufacturer. Don't play cutesy trying to spin it, a simple honest yes would have been more credible than a no followed by spin that means yes.

So what would you have retailers in general do, write their own marketing materials for each and every product, but only after extensive testing by experts to ensure that only the facts of the product are presented, less any descriptive language that could possibly be misleading to consumers? Thank you, everything we buy retail will become more expensive.

If that is not what you are advocating, then please, tell us what objective measure can a retailer use to determine if the marketing speak of a product they are handling indeed is accurate?

I think you are going for the wrong target here, the manufacturer usually provides the marketing materials, not the retailer. Can you tell us who wrote those product descriptions you cited - Target or the manufacturer?

So your answer is yes,
I think you are going for the wrong target here, the manufacturer usually provides the marketing materials, not the retailer. Can you tell us who wrote those product descriptions you cited - Target or the manufacturer?

My answer is no. It's of no use or concern to the consumer who wrote the marketing literature. Who presents it to them as the gospel is their concern. Whether the manufacturer or the seller are responsible for the error is something for the manufacturer and the seller to bicker over. The consumer is to be protected from mistakes by either or both. That protection would ideally come from the good intentions of the maker or seller, when that fails then it's up to the courts.

This instance, the only one I'm discussing even if I didn't say so before, the marketing of a childrens bicycle as a high performance recreational tool is Wal-Marts doing. The example is straight from their website and is used to describe a $75 dollar "Next" brand bicycle with all of the same features as the faulty product in the lawsuit.

The product in question, 8524-14 WAL and 8526-20 WAL were not simply purchased from Next or Dyna or whatever name they'd like. The product was manufactured at the request of Wal-Mart to the specifications best able to better the bottom line. 8524-14 WAL and 8526-20 WAL are unique products that differ slightly from others of the same make and model and were for sale exclusively at Wal-Mart. The copy is theirs even if they didn't write it. That is why these products are specifically Wal-Mart products right down to the product serial number.

Wal-Mart no longer advertises its practices in this manner though doing so was the responsible thing to do. It correctly indicated that they were wholly involved in the manufacture and distribution of the product. If our company did it I'd be fine with it, if we stopped for fear of being caught in our errors and held responsible I'd be ashamed.

The product in question, 8524-14 WAL and 8526-20 WAL were not simply purchased from Next or Dyna or whatever name they'd like. The product was manufactured at the request of Wal-Mart to the specifications best able to better the bottom line. 8524-14 WAL and 8526-20 WAL are unique products that differ slightly from others of the same make and model and were for sale exclusively at Wal-Mart. The copy is theirs even if they didn't write it. That is why these products are specifically Wal-Mart products right down to the product serial number.



You're saying that Walmart intended to make a defective bike?

You're saying that Walmart intended to make a defective bike?

No, and that it has to be one or the other is why a moderate resolution is rarely discussed on an internet forum, specially with this sort of thing. People defend the ideals of Wal-Mart or the consumer rather than just seeking a common ground and finding a preventative solution.

They made a mistake. They're not on trial for their intentions with regard to the product. The only part of the claim that deals at all with the corporations intentions is the question of what they did when the problems were brought to their attention. If they failed then, again, it's a mistake and they chould act to prevent it happening again.

People make mistakes, so do corporations.

Suing Wal-Mart doesn't make the plaintiffs a bunch of money hungry box-store hating liberal communists.

Providing a defective product for children doesn't make Wal-Mart an evil empire that eats the babies of consumers.

It's good for both sides that their lawyers simplify and generalize to give people ammunition for these strange viewpoints. It hampers the processes that lead towards a resolution.

Personally I think Wal-Mart could provide safe childrens bicycles that don't have overly complicated or even useless features that make it hard to produce cheaply without sacrficing safety and durability. If they demanded a safe childrens single speed with a coaster brake and perhaps a front brake, along with a spiffy paintjob you think it wouldn't sell? Of course it would, it's being sold at Wal-Mart. You think kids wouldn't ride it? Do you know any children, of course you do, of course they'd ride it. Everyone in that age group knows the paintjob is the fastes part of the bike! Hell some people continue through life with that perspective.

If they adverstised a safe bike for the age group it would sell. It could be at or near the price consumers pay now. For instance:

Remove -
Rear suspension
Linear pull brakes
Quick releases, all of them
21 gears, shifters and derailleurs
bar ends

Now you've got a single speed bike with a steel or aluminum frame, alloy rims and knobby tires.

Add brakes.

Now you've got a much cheaper to produce bike with questionable dropouts.

Take all the money you saved removing worthless crap. Make a better childrens bike with the foundation of a frame, wheels and brakes.

Now add the buying and selling power of the worlds largest retailer with a loyal consumer base.

= safe childrens bike affordable and Sold Out. Wal-Mart has that sort of power. People don't like it, but I'd take a moderate position and say people don't like the way that power is used.

Personally I think Wal-Mart could provide safe childrens bicycles that don't have overly complicated or even useless features that make it hard to produce cheaply without sacrficing safety and durability. If they demanded a safe childrens single speed with a coaster brake and perhaps a front brake, along with a spiffy paintjob you think it wouldn't sell? Of course it would, it's being sold at Wal-Mart. You think kids wouldn't ride it? Do you know any children, of course you do, of course they'd ride it. Everyone in that age group knows the paintjob is the fastes part of the bike! Hell some people continue through life with that perspective.

If they adverstised a safe bike for the age group it would sell. It could be at or near the price consumers pay now. For instance:

Remove -
Rear suspension
Linear pull brakes
Quick releases, all of them
21 gears, shifters and derailleurs
bar ends

Now you've got a single speed bike with a steel or aluminum frame, alloy rims and knobby tires.

Add brakes.

Now you've got a much cheaper to produce bike with questionable dropouts.

Take all the money you saved removing worthless crap. Make a better childrens bike with the foundation of a frame, wheels and brakes.

Now add the buying and selling power of the worlds largest retailer with a loyal consumer base.

= safe childrens bike affordable and Sold Out. Wal-Mart has that sort of power. People don't like it, but I'd take a moderate position and say people don't like the way that power is used.

As to making a bike better suited to children, in short a better bike. Yes Walmart has that power. As to selling it that is a different story. Why buy an "ordinary" bike at Walmart when you can get a bike with all kinds of extra features at K-mart for the same price?

Walmart can no more turn back the trends of our time than Knute could bail the ocean with a strainer.

Yes, even if the trends of our time happen to include the use of slave/semi-slave labor. Everybody's doing it, after all. Only a commie terrsymp would object.

As to making a bike better suited to children, in short a better bike. Yes Walmart has that power. As to selling it that is a different story. Why buy an "ordinary" bike at Walmart when you can get a bike with all kinds of extra features at K-mart for the same price?

Walmart can no more turn back the trends of our time than Knute could bail the ocean with a strainer.


Wal-Mart could eat K-mart for breakfast and snack on Target before lunch. They do in fact set trends. Wal-Mart has +3x the locations of K-Mart and Target combined without considering the international scene which they dominate entirely in relation to these two US competitors.


*100 million: The number of people who shop at Wal-Mart's 3400 American stores every week.


*50 million: The amount of square footage Wal-Mart plans to add this year, including 50-55 new Wal-Mart stores, 220-230 new Supercenters, 35-40 new Sam's Club and 130-140 new international stores. [View a chart of Wal-Mart locations worldwide, as of Jan. 31, 2004.]


*1.2 million: The number of Wal-Mart associates in the U.S. Any full- or part-time Wal-Mart employee, up to and including the CEO, is considered an "associate," in Wal-Mart parlance. Internationally, Wal-Mart employs an additional 330,000 associates.


*600,000: The number of new employees Wal-Mart hires each year. The company's turnover rate is 44 percent -- close to the retail industry average.


*1979: The year Wal-Mart's sales first top $1 billion.


*$256 billion : Wal-Mart's sales in 2003. In the words of Wal-Mart CFO Tom Schoewe, Wal-Mart's sales are equal to "one IBM, one Hewlett Packard, one Dell computer, one Microsoft and one Cisco System -- and oh, by the way, after that we got $2 billion left over."


*35: The number of Wal-Mart Supercenters in China.


*$15 billion: The amount of Chinese products Wal-Mart estimates it imports each year; others suggest the number may be higher.


*$120 billion: The U.S. trade deficit with China in 2003.


* 8 percent: The amount of total U.S. retail sales, excluding automobiles, accounted for by Wal-Mart.


If Wal-Mart choose to market a safe, suavely painted childrens bike at a good value -instead- of the current fare their competition would likely follow suit. Especially if they changed tack and advertised it in a sensible manner directed squarely at parent (kids get the paintjob) After all, the producers of the bikes themselves will literally re-vamp their operations around what Wal-Mart wants, not what the others would like. The cheap bikes got cheaper because Wal-Mart made it so. It's why you're able to buy a $75.00 childrens bike, just like in 1978 when I got mine. The quality has gone down, down, down but where else has inflation stood still for 2+ decades?

My answer is no. It's of no use or concern to the consumer who wrote the marketing literature. Who presents it to them as the gospel is their concern.


Oh really? So if I don't consider my Maxwell House coffee to be 'good to the last drop' the grocery store I purchased it from is just as liable as the manufacturer? How about if I my car doesn't get me singing 'zoom zoom', the dealer is to blame as much as the automaker?

How about this statement for Serfas Drifter tires:

"The Drifter is a great tire for cruising down the trail or rolling down city streets. The super-hard 69-durometer rubber increases mileage and the inverted tread reduces rolling resistance for more efficiency. Plus, the armor casing delivers unparalleled puncture resistance."

So if I get a flat, less mileage, more rolling resistance or just plain don't think it's a great tire for cruising down the trail or rolling down city streets, all of these folks have potential liability?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Drifter+is+a+great+tire+for+cruising%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

How about this kids bike:
"The super-tough MXR Micro is a mini machine with mega-cool style! You'll appreciate the durable steel frame and heavy-duty training wheels, while he'll love the cool graphics and racy BMX look. The MXR Micro is a great first step towards a lifetime of fun and excitement on two wheels."

If this doesn't turn out to be super tough when my kid decides to go extreme biking and the bike breaks and hurts him, or if the heavy duty training wheels give out and prove not to be so heavy-duty, causing Junior to fall down and go boom, all of these LBS and retailers are as liable as the manufacturer?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22+The+super-tough+MXR+Micro+is+a+mini+machine+with+mega-cool+style%21+%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Shall I continue, or do you wish to rethink your pseudo legal 'opinion'?

You're saying that Walmart intended to make a defective bike?

No, he's saying that Walmart knew the manufacturer made a defective bike and lied to consumers by using the manufacturer's marketing literature. I think it's called pretzel logic.

Oh really? So if I don't consider my Maxwell House coffee to be 'good to the last drop' the grocery store I purchased it from is just as liable as the manufacturer? How about if I my car doesn't get me singing 'zoom zoom', the dealer is to blame as much as the automaker?

How about this statement for Serfas Drifter tires:

"The Drifter is a great tire for cruising down the trail or rolling down city streets. The super-hard 69-durometer rubber increases mileage and the inverted tread reduces rolling resistance for more efficiency. Plus, the armor casing delivers unparalleled puncture resistance."

So if I get a flat, less mileage, more rolling resistance or just plain don't think it's a great tire for cruising down the trail or rolling down city streets, all of these folks have potential liability?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+Drifter+is+a+great+tire+for+cruising%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

How about this kids bike:
"The super-tough MXR Micro is a mini machine with mega-cool style! You'll appreciate the durable steel frame and heavy-duty training wheels, while he'll love the cool graphics and racy BMX look. The MXR Micro is a great first step towards a lifetime of fun and excitement on two wheels."

If this doesn't turn out to be super tough when my kid decides to go extreme biking and the bike breaks and hurts him, or if the heavy duty training wheels give out and prove not to be so heavy-duty, causing Junior to fall down and go boom, all of these LBS and retailers are as liable as the manufacturer?
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22+The+super-tough+MXR+Micro+is+a+mini+machine+with+mega-cool+style%21+%22&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Shall I continue, or do you wish to rethink your pseudo legal 'opinion'?

It's not a legal opinion it's my opinion. Thank you for finding it well spoken that you should mistake it for such.

I don't think drawing such parallels is practical when I've said I'm sticking to the matter at hand.

However:

For the coffee and cars, neither of which have anything to do with Wal-Mart and childrens bikes:

If your coffee is no good you return it to POP. Maxwell House re-imburses the retailer. It's a common arrangement although you're also allowed to return the un-used portion directly to Maxwell House I'm sure. That isn't a question of liability unless the coffee harmed you in some way.

The advertisment for Mazda you mention has no parallel in the matter at hand. I've never heard of a product that was required by manufacture to produce slogans during use or a consumer who was harmed when it didn't.

The Drifter:

As for the tire "Drifter" I've just never heard of someone incurring a liability for reselling a product that is used for it's intended purpose but does not perform as well as advertised. A dissatisfied customer is a shame, not a legal liability unless specific promises were made.

However, if the "Drifter" had a problem with weak sidewalls that caused a blowout when inflated to the recommended PSI then yes, the manufacturer would definately want to do a recall and settle up with anyone injured thanks to their faulty product. The retailer would be obligated to honor the recall and report all accidents involving the product. If Serfas were the direct retailer or the retailer were the importer of record then they may find they have a liability.

If the makers of the "Drifter" decided to ignore the claims of consumers and failed to report accidents or otherwise behaved in a questionable manner they'd find themselves in the same pickle Wal-Mart and Dyna are in over these bicycles.

The Super Tough MXR Micro!

The copy you provide for the super-tough MXR Micro makes -no- mention of it's intended use while specifically marking the user just as it should. The example I provided clearly does the opposite while making no mention of the user. The MXR copy you've presented would be excellent for a single speed, safe, durable childrens bike. (paintjob for the kids, training wheels for the parents, a real deal!)

The copy I presented would be far more appropriate for a mid-level downhill MTB.

Tie that copy you've presented to a safe product and you've got a winner

It's not pretzel logic at all. It's calling a fish a fish. Mistakes are not immoral and are best corrected in a manner that reflects responsible concern for the consumer.

None of the examples you've provided come anywhere close to misrepresentation of a product, certainly not one that could lead to harm for a consumers child.

No, he's saying that Walmart knew the manufacturer made a defective bike and lied to consumers by using the manufacturer's marketing literature. I think it's called pretzel logic.

I said no such thing. I guess thats why you can't quote me on that, maybe you can though. It may take you a few minutes but if you work at it you can take something I've said out of context and triumphantly present it to everyone soon. Have fun with that.

It's not a legal opinion it's my opinion. Thank you for finding it well spoken that you should mistake it for such.


Pseudo: (often used in combination) not genuine but having the appearance of; "a pseudo esthete"; "pseudoclassic"
# imposter: a person who makes deceitful pretenses

Nuff said

Pseudo: (often used in combination) not genuine but having the appearance of; "a pseudo esthete"; "pseudoclassic"
# imposter: a person who makes deceitful pretenses

Nuff said

Good job with that dictionary Chip. I prefer Oxford Press myself but whatever, I'm sure yours used a nice typeface.

Tell you what, use it to look up liability and maybe you can provide an example that parallels the question at hand since you can't seem to stick to the subject.

It'd help you quite a bit to know what the word means and why cars that don't make you sing haven't saddled their makers with lawsuits from angry, hurt consumers.

As for implying I'm deceitful, good luck with that.

SamHouston is clearly full of lies, flimflam, dishonesty, duplicity, and deceit! Burn him at the stake!

Good job with that dictionary Chip. I prefer Oxford Press myself but whatever, I'm sure yours used a nice typeface.

Tell you what, use it to look up liability and maybe you can provide an example that parallels the question at hand since you can't seem to stick to the subject.

It'd help you quite a bit to know what the word means and why cars that don't make you sing haven't saddled their makers with lawsuits from angry, hurt consumers.

As for implying I'm deceitful, good luck with that.

Well perhaps you should go back and read what this case is all about - which has nothing to do with marketing materials and has everything to do with the defendants allegedly not reporting known defects to government regulators. Your notion that a retailer should be held liable for merely parroting a manufacturer's marketing materials is just plain silly. That should have been apparent to you from my first reply, but you wanted to play lawyer.

Well perhaps you should go back and read what this case is all about - which has nothing to do with marketing materials and has everything to do with the defendants allegedly not reporting known defects to government regulators. Your notion that a retailer should be held liable for merely parroting a manufacturer's marketing materials is just plain silly. That should have been apparent to you from my first reply, but you wanted to play lawyer.

The "notion" you type of is the subject at hand. I've read quite a bit about this case and am aware of what it is about. I wasn't the one to bring up the retailers advertisement methods. The conversation evolved from many points on many subjects. The lawsuit itself was left behind some time ago. You'll notice I haven't discussed who was right or wrong or the merits of the case in any depth. Instead I was focussing on what could result from this case and what the situation is today. Those subjects include accurate marketing and safety considerations.

If you'd wanted to stick strictly to case law you did a fine job of straying yourself Chip.

BTW since you too are a dictionary fan, I'll remove your implied insult, save you an apology since I'm not dishonest.

pseud-o /'su:do:, 'sju:-/ combining form (also pseud- befor a vowel)1. ... 2. Resembling or imitating (often in technical applications) (pseudo-language; pseudo-acid; pseudo-legal)[Greek]

and the etymology etc etc.

Cheers,
Sam

Instead I was focussing on what could result from this case and what the situation is today.
No, and that it has to be one or the other is why a moderate resolution is rarely discussed on an internet forum...
Personally I think Wal-Mart could provide safe childrens bicycles that don't have overly complicated or even useless features that make it hard to produce cheaply without sacrficing safety and durability. If they demanded a safe childrens single speed with a coaster brake and perhaps a front brake, along with a spiffy paintjob you think it wouldn't sell? ...
If they adverstised a safe bike for the age group it would sell. It could be at or near the price consumers pay now. For instance:

Remove -
Rear suspension
Linear pull brakes
Quick releases, all of them
21 gears, shifters and derailleurs
bar ends

I also wish that the department stores AND LBS would offer a selection of simplified bikes for the non avid cyclist. BUT that doesn't make all the features that SamHouston considers "useless" unsafe. If Wal-Mart sold children's versions of Flying Pigeon Bicycles do you think the carping from these alleged bicycling safety advocates would cease? Stick to the issue at hand, my foot.

We are in agreement that QR on children's bike is a no-go and should not be sold on ANY child's bike. I am not in agreement with those LBS devotees who think a QR design becomes safe for all users if equipped on a bike originally sold at a LBS. The alleged two minute safety briefing to the original purchaser doesn't make a mechanism, unsafe by design, become safe. IMO, QR's should only be sold (if at all) as a specific customer requested (in writing) option and only on adult sized bikes.

And the arguments of some of the other posters has nothing to do with the issue at hand about safety of bikes sold at Wal-Mart, department stores or at LBS. It is nothing more than ranting at a very large symbol of the despised Evil Empire.

Absolutely I agree. Sure things aren't ideal at Wal-Mart or with childrens bikes in general, but every week the conversation is how evil Wal-Mart is or how ammoral and greedy the litigants are. No one ever discusses what could make things better. To me that's much more interesting than the two extremes we always see.

Certainly derailluers on childrens bike are not useless at all, except for the gas tanks on cruisers most features on childrens bikes work just as they're supposed to. I just think parents could do a better, safer and happier job of parenting their childrens riding experience with a simpler bike. I mean if they can sell me a bike with so many features for $75.00 I'd actually really like to see how well made a simpler bike they could provide for that price would be. Seems a foregone conclusion that it could be a damn fine ride for less than a hundred bucks.

And that'd mean more cycling especially with fewer mech problems.

When I was still in school I rode my lil single speed 13-14 blocks to school every day without fail. Then I rode it til sundown and rode it all day on wekends with my buddies. We were like a lil bicycle gang causing trouble in the neighbourhood. A flat was fun because so little went wrong it was fun to go to the garage and fix it together as though we were a bunch of mechanics or something. Our cheap bikes seemed bulletproof.

Now whenever I visit a friend or relative with chilluns of that age group I'm very often fetching my tools from my bag and making an over geared monstrosity ridable again...for a while. It often takes a good while to fix them too. And while all those features seem to be what sells the bike I'll maintain to my dying day that for children there are 2 concerns, functionality and the paintjob. Get those right and they'll ride til their legs pop off.

Absolutely I agree. Sure things aren't ideal at Wal-Mart or with childrens bikes in general, but every week the conversation is how evil Wal-Mart is or how ammoral and greedy the litigants are. No one ever discusses what could make things better. To me that's much more interesting than the two extremes we always see.

Certainly derailluers on childrens bike are not useless at all, except for the gas tanks on cruisers most features on childrens bikes work just as they're supposed to. I just think parents could do a better, safer and happier job of parenting their childrens riding experience with a simpler bike. I mean if they can sell me a bike with so many features for $75.00 I'd actually really like to see how well made a simpler bike they could provide for that price would be. Seems a foregone conclusion that it could be a damn fine ride for less than a hundred bucks.

And that'd mean more cycling especially with fewer mech problems.

When I was still in school I rode my lil single speed 13-14 blocks to school every day without fail. Then I rode it til sundown and rode it all day on wekends with my buddies. We were like a lil bicycle gang causing trouble in the neighbourhood. A flat was fun because so little went wrong it was fun to go to the garage and fix it together as though we were a bunch of mechanics or something. Our cheap bikes seemed bulletproof.

Now whenever I visit a friend or relative with chilluns of that age group I'm very often fetching my tools from my bag and making an over geared monstrosity ridable again...for a while. It often takes a good while to fix them too. And while all those features seem to be what sells the bike I'll maintain to my dying day that for children there are 2 concerns, functionality and the paintjob. Get those right and they'll ride til their legs pop off.


There's the irony - singlespeeds are 'kool' again, but the manufactures & retailers are still trying to target the younger riders with DR mountain and useless BMX style bikes.

Wow ...last summer I had a NEXT I bought from them and was having issues with the chain always coming off. My friend had the same bike that did the same thing. I was riding on a main ave when going pretty damn fast and the chain broke I swearved and my knee cap caught a No Parking sign. I ended up Breaking my knee cap and tore a ligament. I now have a piece of my knee thats very tight and still hurts at times..I never did think about sueing them LOL :) But the bike was totaled ...I had stopped traffic and all they thought someone had hit me and sped off. I will never buy a bike again..Im litteraly afraid to ride fast because I think that the chain will fall off.

--Josh

The theory is that Wal-Mart has a lot of money and the victims as yet, do not. For a huge fee and expenses amounting to most of the money collected, atorneys will get the plaintiffs some money. The rest of us will pay for it all. :mad:

Guess what? You'll have to lie to get on the jury. Any sane and rational person knows you're right so their mind is already made up. They won't get on the jury either . . . which means the jury will be made up of idiots and liars. :)

Rather then come across as heavy handed Wal-Mart haters; why not try to get them to improve the biking situation, while improving the public perception of that company. I suspect that the big problem for Wal-Mart is not the legality or cost of litigation, but the public perception that they don’t care about little biking babies. This point really is not being made outside this forum.

Wal-Mart must sell 70% of the bikes in the US. They do a pretty good job of living up to the statutes in terms of what is legal to sell and how. But they are a mega retailer and several problems must slip through. Even one in a million means 10 cases a year. The insurance liability is paltry only 200k each, max for an adult, kids are “worth” less. That is only 2 million a year. But they are doubling their money on 10 million units.

So what to do? Protests And boycotts. The idea would be to get the consumers to see Wal-Mart as uncaring, profit sluts, which of course, they are. I know that there are BF people that say that is unfair and it is. But it is legal. Trouble is that when the plaintiffs get their pay offs it will come with gag orders.

Seems like walmart could see the "business ethics" in giving some (about 2ml/yr) to increase bike saftey. Or allowing use of a portion of thier parking lots for bike saftey rodeos.

From the article...
"Anthony's mother, Sandy Huber, said she regrets that she didn't take her son's bike back sooner after he crashed in September 2000. She said he had to tighten the lever on the quick-release mechanism almost every time he went for a ride. Her then-husband also tried to fix it. After the crash, she said, an insurance adjuster sent her a letter telling her that her son had been negligent.

"I think that's a bunch of B.S.," Anthony said. "I just used the bike to ride from place to place." "


SO....someone attempting to fix something he knows nothing about, a kid not checking his equipment out before a ride, a mother continuing to let her chikd ride a defective bike.......

I have seen the "quality" bikes at Wally world, the GMC road bike they had a jsut too funny not to look at. It was all steel, weighed about 30#, had a plastic rear derailleur, all for $150. When will people learn that wal-mart products = crap.

Anybody who purchases anything from WalMart has already surrendered the moral high ground required to file a lawsuit against anybody.

Because people who save money have less morality!

That makes perfect sense, thanks for your insight and wisdom.

Because people who save money have less morality!

That makes perfect sense, thanks for your insight and wisdom.

So buying poorly made goods equates to saving money? No wonder it took American car manufacturers so long to catch up, Lots of their customers are Butt bone stupid! They knew they could sell crap to consumers for a decade and not worry about quality control, their market was der dumb!

butt bone stupid adjective 1. As stupid as the bone in your butt.
see "Butt-Bone"

So buying poorly made goods equates to saving money? No wonder it took American car manufacturers so long to catch up, Lots of their customers are Butt bone stupid! They knew they could sell crap to consumers for a decade and not worry about quality control, their market was der dumb!

butt bone stupid adjective 1. As stupid as the bone in your butt.
see "Butt-Bone"

This debate is about the quality of Walmart bikes, not their other products. They sell most of the same products as the other stores do only for less(usually). So most of the products in other stores are crap too? Many people have issues with Walmart just because they are so big and do make a lot of money. The company you work for has never tried to hide their mistakes? I must work for only immoral companies then, cause each one of them did that.

This debate is about the quality of Walmart bikes, not their other products. They sell most of the same products as the other stores do only for less(usually). So most of the products in other stores are crap too? Many people have issues with Walmart just because they are so big and do make a lot of money. The company you work for has never tried to hide their mistakes? I must work for only immoral companies then, cause each one of them did that.

You overlooked one important aspect in your rebuttal. These bikes were produced specifically for Wal-Mart at their behest for sale exclusively at Wal-Mart. Very, very often the products you buy at Wal-Mart are not the same as at other x-marts though they bear the same descriptions and packaging. This is most often demonstrated in such things as bicycles and consumer electronics but has been a part of their busines model that extends even to the food they sell.

Wal-Mart learned early that "buying power" while obviously the most advantagous aspect of importing consumer goods for retail sale, has its limits as there is a point at which the price can go no lower no matter how many they buy. Their answer was to force manufacturers to rework products to lower their initial cost...if they want to do business with Wal-Mart. The manufacturers suddenly discover that their entire operation is dependent on those huge orders from Wal-Mart...so they make it cheaper. Do you think they lower their products initial cost by upping their production values or even keeping the status quo? That's not really possible.

BTW I don't know about that other fellow but I work for a company that wouldn't do that, hide mistakes. I don't think it's because we are not a big company. As long as my wife or I have the helm it'd never be possible. One of the differences between personal responsibility and corporate responsibility I think, so we're lucky like that. So are the people that deal with us.

You overlooked one important aspect in your rebuttal. These bikes were produced specifically for Wal-Mart at their behest for sale exclusively at Wal-Mart. Very, very often the products you buy at Wal-Mart are not the same as at other x-marts though they bear the same descriptions and packaging. This is most often demonstrated in such things as bicycles and consumer electronics but has been a part of their busines model that extends even to the food they sell.



The bike issue I'm not going to debate about. I don't know. However, many companies have products made to their specifications. Those specifications can vary quite a bit. But the vast majority are the same. And food, well on name brand(not private label) items they are same from one store to the next. I've dealt with food manufacturers for some time and they didn't make their foods for Walmart. Still don't. Some large companies don't even make some of their major sellers. Their competitors do.

A point here: Sometime in the early 1980's after doing a demographic study of its customers, Schwinn removed quick releases from their popular Continental bike because they found out that the average buyer was twelve years old and never learned to use a quick release. Wal Mart and/or their supplier might have a problem if this is brought up during the trial. I'm a bike retail lifer and have several times, unilaterally and at the behest of salespeople, refitted bikes from quick release to nutted axles before they were taken home either by children or by developmentally disabled adults. One last thing--how straight were the forks on these bikes? Dropout alignment makes a huge amount of difference in how a frong wheel can be attached by any means.

this reminds me of the time when i was 7 or so and thought i was pretty hot stuff. after doing some "work" on my tiny bmx bike i didn't tighten the axle nut enough. yeah that first bunny hop ended up hurting pretty bad. at least i didn't end up with a seizure like this kid. perhaps i should have sued my parents for raising an idiot bike mechanic.

You overlooked one important aspect in your rebuttal. These bikes were produced specifically for Wal-Mart at their behest for sale exclusively at Wal-Mart. Very, very often the products you buy at Wal-Mart are not the same as at other x-marts though they bear the same descriptions and packaging. This is most often demonstrated in such things as bicycles and consumer electronics but has been a part of their busines model that extends even to the food they sell.


This is more or less the same scheme used by the late Crazy Eddie - remember him? The only difference between a Crazy Eddie TV set and another at another store was the model number. Oh... and the price.

Last I heard of Crazy Eddie, he was still hiding from US authorities in Greece.

Is not the jury out. Is not proper product design the argument used in court to determine it's safety record and whether or not the manufacturer is liable.
My concern. WIll we have the right to sue concerns such as Wal Mart. Tort reform is really about our access to the courts and our right to sue. Our little litigations are really like fleas on a dogs back. They have such a battery of unusued lawyers.
Might as well keep them busy. It is the small smuck who has not the funds to even consider challenging them.

I had a qr come off going dh on my mountain bike, don't know how it happened either. Knocked myself out chipped a tooth and got a nice gash in my head when i woke up my fork was trashed. I'm glad it happened though i learnt me's a leson (Wear your damn helmet! Mother was always right)

My Mongoose actually came from Wally World and after I exchange this one (grumble) I plan to strip it down and look for ANY imperfections.