Advocacy & Safety - Pinnacle of safety nannyism

http://miami.craigslist.org/brw/bik/1044870932.html


Reply to: sale-1044870932@craigslist.org
Date: 2009-02-21, 7:47PM EST

This bicycle is sized for a small adult up front and two small adults in the middle and back seat. Children can also ride this fun bicycle. It is a real head turner. We have enjoyed this bicycle with our children many times. However, we now need to clean out our garage.

Feel free to call us and take a ride. Just bring your helmet!

Barry Dickman
[phone]

-Kurt

You'd think he'd have a selection of helmets to loan them.

If you're refering to the safety nannyism because of requiring a helmet to test ride the bike I have to disagree. The seller is probalby doing so because of liability reasons, especially if the test ride starts/ends and/or occurs on their property. It is also no differant then a bike shop requring customers to wear a helmet when their bikes are test ridden before they are purchased. I know if I were selling a bike I would not let anyone test ride it with out a helmet on.

You'd think he'd have a selection of helmets to loan them.

:lol: Good one.

He would probably be scared of lice :rolleyes:

-Kurt

The seller mentions the need to clean out his garage. Maybe his concern that a buyer might stumble over his clutter and bash his head in is the reasoning behind the helmet requirement.

Or, maybe he's going to hop on and take the buyer on a daredevil test ride himself.

Or, most likely, he's simply a helmet nazi.

If you're refering to the safety nannyism because of requiring a helmet to test ride the bike I have to disagree. The seller is probalby doing so because of liability reasons, especially if the test ride starts/ends and/or occurs on their property...

:thumb:

Anybody that doesn't want to wear a helmet isn't going to be forced to test ride that bike.

I don't see a problem. The guy requires one to wear a helmet to ride HIS bicycle. He is not requiring you to wear a helmet any other time. If you don't want to wear a helmet, just don't expect to ride his bicycle. It is his business and I don't really care what his reasons are. It is not an onerous requirement and if I don't like it. I don't have to ride his bike.

The seller is also advertising a bike explicityly for use by/with kids. If you, a "small adult", and your two kids go for a test drive, the chain breaks, you take a spill and one of your kids is broccolitized, you ain't gonna sue? Also, Florida has a helmet law for kids under 16.

The seller is also advertising a bike explicityly for use by/with kids. If you, a "small adult", and your two kids go for a test drive, the chain breaks, you take a spill and one of your kids is broccolitized, you ain't gonna sue? Also, does your state have a helmet law for kids?

Mine doesn't. This is the parking lot for the Middle School closest to me with a student enrollment of about 350. Helmet Nannyism would reduce this to about zero overnight.

If you, a "small adult", and your two kids go for a test drive, the chain breaks, you take a spill and one of your kids is broccolitized, you ain't gonna sue?

Why in the world would you sue someone for that?

Why in the world would you sue someone for that?

Many people would sue. The ones who would win the suit would be the ones who could demonstrate that the seller knew, or should have known, that the the chain was old or weak.

Personally, I would tell the potential buyer that the bike hasn't been checked by a mechanic, and I don't know if it's safe or not. I would suggest that they wear a helmet, but I wouldn't stop them from test riding if they refused to wear one. I would also inspect the bike to rule out obvious mechanical problems before I let anybody (even myself) ride it.

Mine doesn't. This is the parking lot for the Middle School closest to me with a student enrollment of about 350. Helmet Nannyism would reduce this to about zero overnight.

Those kids actually wouldn't ride if they had to wear helmets? What is their (the kids) reasoning? What about the parents?

Those kids actually wouldn't ride if they had to wear helmets? What is their (the kids) reasoning? What about the parents?

The only people around here who wear helmets while bicycling are the full zoot-suit riders and kids who are being accompanied by their parents while riding around the block. I can't speak for their reasoning. Mine is that it offers so little risk mitigation that it is close to worthless. The minuscule "protection benefits" are certainly not worth the cost of discomfort, additional sweat and conflict with more desirable head wear (to include baseball caps, hoodies and/or headphones).

Altogether, it's not so much a "pinnacle of safety nannyism" as it is a "pinnacle of our litigious society".

I can think of a worst-case scenario where someone comes over for a test ride, doesn't wear a helmet, then, after they've pedaled for ten yards, falls off the bike on purpose (literally, taking a "dive", as in boxing or soccer). They'll claim to have been injured -- on YOUR bike, under YOUR watch. Next thing you know, before they even get up from the sidewalk, they're dialing their lawyer.

That's f'ed up, isn't it? I gotta tell ya, crooks know no moral boundaries.

Altogether, it's not so much a "pinnacle of safety nannyism" as it is a "pinnacle of our litigious society".

I can think of a worst-case scenario where someone comes over for a test ride, doesn't wear a helmet, then, after they've pedaled for ten yards, falls off the bike on purpose (literally, taking a "dive", as in boxing or soccer). They'll claim to have been injured -- on YOUR bike, under YOUR watch. Next thing you know, before they even get up from the sidewalk, they're dialing their lawyer.

That's f'ed up, isn't it? I gotta tell ya, crooks know no moral boundaries.

This seems like a pretty far-fetched scenario. Are you aware of any times when this knd of thing actually occurred? (Urban legends don't count!)

The only people around here who wear helmets while bicycling are the full zoot-suit riders and kids who are being accompanied by their parents while riding around the block. I can't speak for their reasoning. Mine is that it offers so little risk mitigation that it is close to worthless. The minuscule "protection benefits" are certainly not worth the cost of discomfort, additional sweat and conflict with more desirable head wear (to include baseball caps, hoodies and/or headphones).

When I first started riding, I was living in a rough neighborhood with my streetwise stepson, then in his twenties. I told him that I was thinking bout getting a helmet. His response was, "That's OK in the suburbs, but around here some g-banger is gonna pull you off the bike and kick your butt for looking all dorky."

:lol: Good one.

He would probably be scared of lice :rolleyes:

-Kurt

from http://www.freshgear.ca/mrsa_danger_athletes_medical.html

Bacterial infection found within sports equipment is a real danger. The Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in the USA sites 5 ways in which bacteria and infections spread:

CROWDING
CONTACT
CUTS & ABRASIONS
CONTAMINATION of items and surfaces
Lack of CLEANLINESS

What's growing in my gear?

Sports padding for hockey players, football players and lacrosse players, for example, are the ideal breeding ground for trouble. A strong odour is usually the result of a mixture of sweat, mucus, blood, dirt, and other substances, which create the perfect environment for bacteria, mold, and fungus to thrive in. Here is a sample of what is found in the typical gear:

Helmet - Staphylococcus Aureus

MRSA is a form of "staph infection" caused when Staphylococcus Aureus bacteria, that is resistant to the Methicillin family of antibiotics, enters the body. MRSA usually appears, at first, as "spider bites" or small boils in the skin. If you experience any like the ones pictured here, consult a physician.

http://www.freshgear.ca/images/mrsa_shape.jpg

What can be done?

NATA, the National Athletic Trainers Association, recommends that athletes avoid sharing athletic gear. Also strongly recommended is to clean and disinfect protective equipment such as helmets.

If you, a "small adult", and your two kids go for a test drive, the chain breaks, you take a spill and one of your kids is broccolitized, you ain't gonna sue?

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't mean the suit would be successful.

Let me know if you find a judgement where the court found a helmet could have prevented an injury. As far as I know, there have been none.

This seems like a pretty far-fetched scenario. Are you aware of any times when this knd of thing actually occurred? (Urban legends don't count!)

I live downwind of Congress. Don't think that any ludicrous scenario involving lawsuits is impossible. :lol:

Why in the world would you sue someone for that?

Because the parent will feel horrible guilt that was his or her fault that junior is now a vegetable and will want to blame anyone else for their childs condition. Coping mechanism.

Because the parent will feel horrible guilt that was his or her fault that junior is now a vegetable and will want to blame anyone else for their childs condition. Coping mechanism.

Wouldn't it also be that there is little downside to file a suit? Isn't it true that there is little cost to the person filing the suit if it is unsuccessful?

I believe up here in Canada, if you file for damages and are unsuccessful in your claim, you're liable for court costs. That's an incentive to only sue if there are legitimate grounds for a suit. In the States, if you lose, you've only lost your time.

Wouldn't it also be that there is little downside to file a suit? Isn't it true that there is little cost to the person filing the suit if it is unsuccessful?

I believe up here in Canada, if you file for damages and are unsuccessful in your claim, you're liable for court costs. That's an incentive to only sue if there are legitimate grounds for a suit. In the States, if you lose, you've only lost your time.

Same thing in the States, if you lose, you pay the other side costs (but usually not attorney's fees) Yes, there's always that possibility, but brain dead kids are slam dunk at trial. It would be very unlikely that a jury would give zero to a brain dead kid. Those cases have huge jury appeal.

The seller mentions the need to clean out his garage. Maybe his concern that a buyer might stumble over his clutter and bash his head in is the reasoning behind the helmet requirement.

That's a good thought. I know the biggest thing my helmet has protected me from in the 6 1/2 years I've been bike commuting is when I bump my head on the top of the shed entrance when putting the bike in it - then I'm glad I'm wearing it! :D

(Extra credit: should I replace it? :lol:)

Same thing in the States, if you lose, you pay the other side costs (but usually not attorney's fees) Yes, there's always that possibility, but brain dead kids are slam dunk at trial. It would be very unlikely that a jury would give zero to a brain dead kid. Those cases have huge jury appeal.

Thanks for that. I was trying to remember a bit I saw somewhere explaining the reasons why suits are so prevalent in the States.

About brain dead kids from falls from bikes. Do you know of any precedents where the lack of a helmet was found to be the cause? Any successful suits against a helmet manufacturer for the failure of it's product?

That's a good thought. I know the biggest thing my helmet has protected me from in the 6 1/2 years I've been bike commuting is when I bump my head on the top of the shed entrance when putting the bike in it - then I'm glad I'm wearing it! :D

(Extra credit: should I replace it? :lol:)

I work on aircraft during those rushed times between flights.

We're required to wear steel toed safety shoes, but helmets would be of more use.

In my 24 years working, I don't think anyone has ever dropped anything on their feet that could have caused harm, but I couldn't tell you how often people bump their heads on the overhead bins.

I live downwind of Congress. Don't think that any ludicrous scenario involving lawsuits is impossible. :lol:

Nothing is impossible. That doesn't give credibility to precautions taken to protect oneself from an over the top fear of ludicrous scenarios.

Those cases have huge jury appeal.

Any of "those cases" in any way connected to the wearing/not wearing of a bicycle helmet when not a legal requirement? Or are are you just speculating about ludicrous what if scenarios like another poster on this thread?

That's a good thought. I know the biggest thing my helmet has protected me from in the 6 1/2 years I've been bike commuting is when I bump my head on the top of the shed entrance when putting the bike in it - then I'm glad I'm wearing it! :D

(Extra credit: should I replace it? :lol:)
You should replace the shed, it may have suffered undetectable structural weakening from the bumping; better to be safe than sorry, eh?

Thanks for that. I was trying to remember a bit I saw somewhere explaining the reasons why suits are so prevalent in the States.

About brain dead kids from falls from bikes. Do you know of any precedents where the lack of a helmet was found to be the cause? Any successful suits against a helmet manufacturer for the failure of it's product?

In any negligence case, there are two primary elements that the plaintiff has to establish. One is that the defendant had a duty to look after the well being of the plaintiff and the second is damages. Now the two elements are supposedly independent of each other, but in practice, since its the jury that determines both elements,a case where there are catastrophic damages damages will certainly sway a jury into finding that the defendant was negligent in a situation where the negligence is pretty tenuous.

So if the plaintiff's theory of negligence is that the defendant seller of the kids bike had a helmet available to give the kid on the test ride, but didn't offer it, the kid falls and is a vegetable, I think a jury would find that the failure to offer the helmet was negligent and definitely give the kid mucho bucks.

Same exact scenario, but the kid just falls and bumps his head, no long term effects, the same jury could come back with a finding of no negligence at all.

I don't know of any cases where the helmet manufacturer was held liable for a defective helmet, but I'm sure there are some out there.

Any of "those cases" in any way connected to the wearing/not wearing of a bicycle helmet when not a legal requirement? Or are are you just speculating about ludicrous what if scenarios like another poster on this thread?

See my previous post. Any case with a veggie kid has huge jury appeal.

I don't know of any cases where the helmet manufacturer was held liable for a defective helmet, but I'm sure there are some out there.
It just has to be there, somewhere, because you wish it to be true, eh?
Maybe its right next to the xmas pony in the pile of poop. There must be a pony in there somewhere.

See my previous post. Any case with a veggie kid has huge jury appeal.

Where are these stories of veggie kids from bike crashes anyway? Given the way they are bandied about in this forum, you'd think there'd be piles of them available for the pro-helmet crowd to cite. The only time I ever read about a child on a bicycle in the news involves a collision with a motor vehicle and the child's death, helmet or no helmet.

Anyone can sue anyone for anything. That doesn't mean the suit would be successful.

Let me know if you find a judgement where the court found a helmet could have prevented an injury. As far as I know, there have been none.

http://adrianfitch.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/cyclists-who-dont-wear-helmets-can-be-guilty-of-contributory-negligence/

John

MRSA is a form of "staph infection" caused when Staphylococcus Aureus bacteria, that is resistant to the Methicillin family of antibiotics, enters the body.

See the often-neglected "phage therapy:"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phage_therapy

-Kurt

http://adrianfitch.wordpress.com/2009/02/04/cyclists-who-dont-wear-helmets-can-be-guilty-of-contributory-negligence/

John

This was a case in the UK. It refers to contributory negligence--meaning that the cyclist himself is contributing to his own injuries, so damages from a motorist who struck him could be reduced. IOW, if the failure to wear a helmet was judged to contribute 40 % to the cyclist's injury, the motorist would only have to pay him/her 60 % of the award. I don't think that contributory negligence is considered in most American courts, depending on the state.

This was a case in the UK. It refers to contributory negligence--meaning that the cyclist himself is contributing to his own injuries, so damages from a motorist who struck him could be reduced. IOW, if the failure to wear a helmet was judged to contribute 40 % to the cyclist's injury, the motorist would only have to pay him/her 60 % of the award. I don't think that contributory negligence is considered in most American courts, depending on the state.

And the lack of a helmet being worn wasn't found to be contributory negligence in the cited UK case either. Keep trying John R., that pony must be somewhere.

And the lack of a helmet being worn wasn't found to be contributory negligence in the cited UK case either. Keep trying John R., that pony must be somewhere.

... and within that link John provided was a link showing the originating article which said,

a cyclist not wearing a helmet can now be found to be negligent, however, for this to happen it would have to be proved – using medical and other evidence – that a helmet would have prevented all of their injuries or made them a good deal less severe.

In this case, helmet expert Dr Bryan Chinn told the court that Mr Smith's helmet would not have prevented Mr Smith's injuries. The court accepted Dr Chinn's evidence and the motorcyclist was fully liable.

This is the rub, there needs to be medical evidence. So far as I know, there has been no evidence that a helmet could have prevented losses from injuries any plaintiff has filed claim for.

There was pertinent information within the story that wasn't considered when commenting to my response. Intentionally missed or just didn't get it?

It just has to be there, somewhere, because you wish it to be true, eh?
Maybe its right next to the xmas pony in the pile of poop. There must be a pony in there somewhere.

I don't wish anything, I'm simply giving my opinion as a lawyer. Why the nastiness?

...

I don't know of any cases where the helmet manufacturer was held liable for a defective helmet, but I'm sure there are some out there.

I know there are defective helmets out there too. A british consumer association did a check and found a significant number of randomly selected helmet failed to meet the standards they are required to meet, however, I'm more interested in any judgement where a court found a helmet could have prevented an injury.

As with the recent case just linked, I've only ever read that a helmet could not have prevented an injury. Never that it could have.

I don't wish anything, I'm simply giving my opinion as a lawyer. Why the nastiness?

Would you go into court as a lawyer and tell the judge/jury "I have no evidence to support my statements but there must be some evidence somewhere"?

As with the recent case just linked, I've only ever read that a helmet could not have prevented an injury. Never that it could have.

Maybe because it's not as newsworthy. Or maybe there isn't enough of an injury to talk about because the helmet did its job.

Why the nastiness?

ILTB's stock in trade.

Maybe because it's not as newsworthy. Or maybe there isn't enough of an injury to talk about because the helmet did its job.

or maybe because when the helmet does it's job the minor injury that the helmet is designed to protect against would never have been sued over in the first place.

Injuries that result in serious injury or death that occur from an impact a helmet was never designed to protect against and provides warnings about, wouldn't be compensated for.

Or at least as so far that I've seen, that's pretty much the case.

That's f'ed up, isn't it? I gotta tell ya, crooks know no moral boundaries.Well, to be fair, it's a hypothetical situation, so wasting moral outrage on it seems ... silly.

Though it seems plausible enough.

Would you go into court as a lawyer and tell the judge/jury "I have no evidence to support my statements but there must be some evidence somewhere"?Well, depending on the particular statements, that might work just fine.

If a lawyer was going to tell a jury that helmets save lives, most people would just nod and agree. And if anybody asked for proof of this, people would just stare at him. OF COURSE helmets save lives! Common sense tells us they do, and anybody who questions that must be lacking in common sense!

And then when you do look for evidence that it's true, there's lots of medical doctors stating it to be fact. Granted, this tends to be based on the same common sense thing, but when a doctor says it, it gets elevated to `proven by experts'.

Man, I really clocked my head on the liftgate latch of our Saturn wagon. Headwound blood stream down the side of my face and all.

If only I'd been wearing a helmet!

When the time comes to sell that car, I'll advertise locally and mention to "bring your helmet!"

Would you go into court as a lawyer and tell the judge/jury "I have no evidence to support my statements but there must be some evidence somewhere"?

Oh, so I make an off-the-cuff remark and now self-professed Judge I Like To Bike suddenly calls the court to order and puts me in front of a jury, with the rules of evidence now applying to everything I say?

Well lets apply the same standard to everything you say. From now on I want evidence for every statement of fact that you make.

Maybe because it's not as newsworthy. Or maybe there isn't enough of an injury to talk about because the helmet did its job.

And you believe that? :rolleyes:

Man, I really clocked my head on the liftgate latch of our Saturn wagon. Headwound blood stream down the side of my face and all.

If only I'd been wearing a helmet!

When the time comes to sell that car, I'll advertise locally and mention to "bring your helmet!"

Better replace that liftgate; it could have suffered undetectable structural damage just like a bicycle helmet. I think the Saturn manufacturer would recommend that you replace the car every 3 or 4 years (or sooner) anyway.

When I first started riding, I was living in a rough neighborhood with my streetwise stepson, then in his twenties. I told him that I was thinking bout getting a helmet. His response was, "That's OK in the suburbs, but around here some g-banger is gonna pull you off the bike and kick your butt for looking all dorky."

Yes, let's be sure to leave all of the urban legends and hyperbole out of the discussion.