Advocacy & Safety - A question about lawyer lips

or lawyer tabs, or what ever you call the annoying things on the forks dropouts that prevent the quick release from working the way it should.
When did they start appearing on bikes?
Is it mandatory for the manufacturers to put them there?
If so, when did that become mandatory?

Thanks

Not sure they are required. I bought a Waterford (frame and fork) last year, the fork has no lawyer lips.

In the 1970s, bicycle manufacturers started to push "racing" 10 speeds on the public that were equipped with quick releases on the wheels. Before that, most bikes had bolted on wheels, which are very secure and which most people knew how to put on and take off.

Many people did not know how the quick releases worked and there were several incidents of front wheels coming completely off the bike because the quick release wasn't properly secured, leading to serious injuries.

The lawyers for the bicycle manufacturers told them to design the front fork with some kind of mechanism that would keep the wheel from coming out of the front fork, even if the quick release was not properly tightened, hence the term "lawyer lips".

I don't know that there are any laws which require that bikes have lawyer lips, I think it's just prudence on the part of bicycle manufacturers to avoid liability.

If you don't think proper quick release use is a problem, just do a search on quick releases here and you will see many posts where people are asking for instructions on how to use them.

I always file off the lawyer lips, but I'm a lawyer so I can do this.

"I always file off the lawyer lips, but I'm a lawyer so I can do this."

This must make it tough for your "significant other" to kiss you. lol.

I don't know anythng about the fork thingies of which you speak, but I know a bit about PI lawsuits. Assuming San-R's explanation is correct, the lawyer lips innovation is a perfect example of how and why product liability lawsuits are a good thing.

Bolting on a wheel was a good way to connect the wheel to the fork, but a quick release greatly increases the functionality of the bike. It made it much easier to transport, easier to change a tube or a tire, and otherwise was a very good innovation. I also understand how they would be easy to mis-use, or to at least install incorrectly. No need to bash the end user who does it wrong as an idiot who deserves to be hurt - from the manufacturer's perspective, someone out there was going to do it wrong, the wheel was going to fall off, and the guy was going to be hurt, maybe seriously. So, why not make a simple change and fix it, and thereby make your product signficantly safer?

So the manufacturers make a small, almost costless change to their forks and the problem largely goes away. It's true that it makes it a bit harder to get the wheel on and off, but that price is inconsequental when compared to the people who are not hurt when they don't use the quick release properly, but whose wheel does not fall off. Making a small change results in a signifcant increase in safety at almost no cost. All thanks to the threat posed by personal injury lawsuits.

Remember this story the next time someone starts bashing ambulance chasers. It's because of them that the world is much safer than it would be otherwise.

"I always file off the lawyer lips, but I'm a lawyer so I can do this."

This must make it tough for your "significant other" to kiss you. lol.Yeah, the vision of San Rensho filing off his lips is painful.

I always file off the lawyer lips, but I'm a lawyer so I can do this.

Oh dear, I filed mine off (the forks that is) and I'm not a lawyer. Am I in trouble? Oh CRAP! I also ripped the tag off my pillow! <looks around nervously>

What would you, as a lawyer, charge to file these off for me? (Just some fun lad, no harm intended).

Seriously though, I always file mine off, wheel has never popped out on me yet.

You think the LBS would show people how to do this, or ask if they know how.

The thing I don't get about the CPSC with regard to bicycles is why so many violations (that the bike shops & customers don't really care about) slip by, then there's a recall (http://uscyclingreport.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1344&Itemid=1).

Here's the law on hub retention. Strangely, it seems like retention for loose solid-axle nuts is required, but not "lawyer lips."

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 16, Volume 2]
[Revised as of January 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 16CFR1512.12]

[Page 565]

TITLE 16--COMMERCIAL PRACTICES

CHAPTER II--CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

PART 1512_REQUIREMENTS FOR BICYCLES--Table of Contents

Subpart A_Regulations

Sec. 1512.12 Requirements for wheel hubs.

All bicycles (other than sidewalk bicycles) shall meet the following
requirements:
(a) Locking devices. Wheels shall be secured to the bicycle frame
with a positive lock device. Locking devices on threaded axles shall be
tightened to the manufacturer's specifications.
(1) Rear wheels. There shall be no relative motion between the axle
and the frame when a force of 1,780 N (400 lbf) is applied symmetrically
to the axle for a period of 30 seconds in the direction of wheel
removal.
(2) Front wheels. Locking devices, except quick-release devices,
shall withstand application of a torque in the direction of removal of
17 N-m (12.5 ft-lb).
(b) Quick-release devices. Lever-operated quick-release devices
shall be adjustable to allow setting the lever position for tightness.
Quick-release levers shall be clearly visible to the rider and shall
indicate whether the levers are in a locked or unlocked position. Quick-
release clamp action shall emboss the frame or fork when locked.
(c) Front hubs. Front hubs not equipped with lever-operated quick-
release devices shall have a positive retention feature that shall be
tested in accordance with the front hub retention test, Sec.
1512.18(j)(3), to assure that when the locking devices are released the
wheel will not separate from the fork.

The original solutions bike manufacturers came up with were much worse. Front wheel retention came about due to the CPSC, not because of lawyers. The solution has changed over the years. The lips are actually a lot better than the early methods. I noticed Peter White advocates using lawyer lipped forks if you have a front disk.

Not everyone knows how to use a quick release. About 10 years ago on a racing club ride I saw a guy bunny hoppy some water at about 25 mph. His front wheel fell off, and his early shell-less styrofoam helmet exploded the second time his head hit the pavement. Off to hospital for him...

You and me can file the wheel rentention bumps off, but some people need all the help they can get.

I don't know anythng about the fork thingies of which you speak, but I know a bit about PI lawsuits. Assuming San-R's explanation is correct, the lawyer lips innovation is a perfect example of how and why product liability lawsuits are a good thing.

Bolting on a wheel was a good way to connect the wheel to the fork, but a quick release greatly increases the functionality of the bike. It made it much easier to transport, easier to change a tube or a tire, and otherwise was a very good innovation. I also understand how they would be easy to mis-use, or to at least install incorrectly. No need to bash the end user who does it wrong as an idiot who deserves to be hurt - from the manufacturer's perspective, someone out there was going to do it wrong, the wheel was going to fall off, and the guy was going to be hurt, maybe seriously. So, why not make a simple change and fix it, and thereby make your product signficantly safer?

So the manufacturers make a small, almost costless change to their forks and the problem largely goes away. It's true that it makes it a bit harder to get the wheel on and off, but that price is inconsequental when compared to the people who are not hurt when they don't use the quick release properly, but whose wheel does not fall off. Making a small change results in a signifcant increase in safety at almost no cost. All thanks to the threat posed by personal injury lawsuits.

Remember this story the next time someone starts bashing ambulance chasers. It's because of them that the world is much safer than it would be otherwise.

Actually a properly adjusted quick releases worked quite well... now with "lawyer lips," one has to constantly adjust the quick release and may actually clamp to the lawyer lips themselves, vice the drop out, thus complicating the problem that was only a problem when lawyers determined it was.

This is the requirement for lawyer lips:
1512.18(j)(3), to assure that when the locking devices are released the
wheel will not separate from the fork.

This is the requirement for lawyer lips:
1512.18(j)(3), to assure that when the locking devices are released the
wheel will not separate from the fork.
But note that according to 1512.12(c) that requirement only applies to front hubs that *do not* have quick release levers.
AFAIK, the lawyer lips are not a specific requirement of the CPSC, but are a response to a costly lawsuit where there was supposedly expert testimony that even a properly adjusted quick-release mechanism could come loose due to vibration and shock while riding and result in loss of the front wheel if the bike then hit a big enough bump. Personally I can not see this happening with a properly used quick release with the possible exception of bikes that use a front disk brake where the calipers are behind the dropout resulting in a reaction force to braking that tends to push the hub down and out of the dropout. Even in that case a good quick release should provide adequate retention, but some models on the market do not.
(None of my bikes have lawyer lips.)

I always file off the lawyer lips, but I'm a lawyer so I can do this.


After explaining to a girl why they were called lawyer lips and laughing about it, she told me both of her parents were lawyers. oops.

After explaining to a girl why they were called lawyer lips and laughing about it, she told me both of her parents were lawyers. oops.

Can you explain the rationale of the enthusiasts who go to the bother of filing them off? Weight savings, micro second time savings when removing the wheel, or what?

^Changes it to a 'not-quite-as-quick release'. Feels regressive once you've enjoyed actual quick releases.

Can you explain the rationale of the enthusiasts who go to the bother of filing them off? Weight savings, micro second time savings when removing the wheel, or what?

Some cyclists know how to use a quick release properly and a smaller group races. Wingnutting over lawyer lips is a delay and an annoyance.

File em off cause it's a pain in the ass to find that after flipping the QR lever, the wheel is not in fact free to remove yet; still have to mess with unscrewing the nut on the other end.
So in a way they defeat the 'quick' aspect of the QR. Filing them down fixes the paradigm.

LAWYER LIPS:

If a Lawyer's lips are moving, he's lying.


ha ha ha.

Are those supposed to be on both sides? If so then I'm missing one on a jogging stroller we bought off of craigslist. I wouldn't worry about it but the spring on the skewer looks to be overly compressed on that side which makes me think it needs a spacer. rather than just putting a washer on I might as well put the original thing on so its there in a few years when I sell it.

I used to have a fast bike with no safety quick releases. When my kids were little my wife noticed one of my releases was undone after the kids were playing near there. I got home sooner than she expected and went for a ride before she could tell me (mid 90's, no cell phone). I hopped out of the front wheel at a high speed, I still can't remember the crash. I smashed my helmet to bits, got a serious concussion, fractured 2 vertebrae, messed up my wrist, and lost a fair amount of face skin. I keep the safety things on my wheels now, and check them every so often. But that's just me.

I used to have a fast bike with no safety quick releases.

There is no such thing as a "safety" quick release (unless you consider curved levers a "safety" Q/R) - only tabbed washers and extruded dropout edges.

Neither is a bike itself fast - the rider determines the speed.


When my kids were little my wife noticed one of my releases was undone after the kids were playing near there.

Is there no end to basic mechanical ineptness? If she had known how to tighten a Q/R skewer, a nasty accident would have been avoided.


I keep the safety things on my wheels now, and check them every so often. But that's just me.

You're not solving the problem by relying on the stupidity clips (sounds to me as if you have tabbed washers) to compensate. Check your Q/R skewers just before you mount up, every time. Period.

-Kurt

check them every so often. But that's just me.

You crashed because you failed to check your QR skewers and now you only check them every so often?

You crashed because you failed to check your QR skewers and now you only check them every so often?

:lol: - good catch.

Some folks will never learn, eh?

-Kurt

Can you explain the rationale of the enthusiasts who go to the bother of filing them off? Weight savings, micro second time savings when removing the wheel, or what?

My lawyers lips told me not to talk about it.

Is there no end to basic mechanical ineptness? If she had known how to tighten a Q/R skewer, a nasty accident would have been avoided.
If Q/R releases were only installed on new bikes as an option, only on full size adult bikes, and only by specific customer request, more than likely a lot of of nasty accidents could be avoided. But then there is no end to bicycling marketer ineptness and/or insensitivity to the actual needs of their customers.

If Q/R releases were only installed on new bikes as an option, only on full size adult bikes, and only by specific customer request, more than likely a lot of of nasty accidents could be avoided.

Ridiculous. The accidents can be avoided by learning how to use the quick release properly, i.e.: if you can't operate it safely, don't use it.

No excuse exists to justify the development of mechanical workarounds to compensate for blatant stupidity.



But then there is no end to bicycling marketer ineptness and/or insensitivity to the actual needs of their customers.

Absolutely, completely, and positively incorrect in this case. Even the casual cyclist has come to demand them for convenience of shoving their bicycle in the trunk of something the size of a Mazda Miyata, even though half of them don't understand how to operate the Q/R skewer.

The funny thing, while neither are in the least bit difficult to learn, I've seen folks literally freak out at the concept of a 9/16" wrench (or 14mm, for that matter) to loosen and tighten the axles - the easier of the two methods, mind you - and yet, the same individuals are quite content with a quick release lever which they can't operate correctly no matter how many times its operation is explained to them.

-Kurt

Ridiculous. The accidents can be avoided by learning how to use the quick release properly, i.e.: if you can't operate it safely, don't use it.

No excuse exists that justifies developing mechanical workarounds that compensate for blatant stupidity.




Absolutely, completely, and positively incorrect in this case. Even the casual cyclist has come to demand them for convenience of shoving their bicycle in the trunk of something the size of a Mazda Miyata, even though half of them don't understand how to operate the Q/R skewer.

The funny thing, while neither are in the least bit difficult to learn, I've seen folks literally freak out at the concept of a 9/16" wrench (or 14mm, for that matter) to loosen and tighten the axles - the easier of the two methods, mind you - and yet, the same individuals are quite content with a quick release lever which they can't operate correctly no matter how many times its operation is explained to them.

-Kurt

Granted the situation is as you describe, a responsible bike industry would refuse to sell any bike with a fashionable Q/R to the general public since it is obviously a notoriously unsafe counter intuitive design being foisted on the public that is unwilling/unable to correctly operate them.

Only because folks refuse to take responsibility for leaving their quick release levers open.

If the world was perfect, bicycle manufacturers would be telling these blockheads that they can either learn how to use them properly, or bugger off.

Protecting the public from their own stupidity only increases overall ignorance.

-Kurt

Only because the legal system allows people to sue others for their own lack of intelligence.

If the world was perfect, bicycle manufacturers would be telling these blockheads that they have two choices: Learn how to use quick-releases properly, or bugger off.

Protecting the public from their own stupidity only increases overall ignorance.

-Kurt

I assume you are all for removing any and all safety requirements on any product offered to the public. Let 'em learn the tricks and intricacies of non standard, counter intuitive design gaffes, or suffer the well deserved consequences of their ignorance, eh?

No. I am only applying this to obvious cases wherein the user, not the product, is at fault.

There isn't anything faulty about the design of the quick-release either. They work most adequately when operated by any half-competent dimwit.

-Kurt

[There is no such thing as a "safety" quick release (unless you consider curved levers a "safety" Q/R) - only tabbed washers and extruded dropout edges.]

My former bike only had the curved lever for a release, now totaled. I was just getting into cycling at the time and didn't do much for maintenance besides air in the tires and making sure the brakes worked. It was also the first day I ever wore a helmet.

[Neither is a bike itself fast - the rider determines the speed.]

As opposed to my current hybrid that weighs a ton.


[Is there no end to basic mechanical ineptness? If she had known how to tighten a Q/R skewer, a nasty accident would have been avoided.]

Your talking about my wife...mechanical is not in her vocab.

[You're not solving the problem by relying on the stupidity clips (sounds to me as if you have tabbed washers) to compensate. Check your Q/R skewers just before you mount up, every time. Period.]

Do you check every time? I check them everytime I add air, that's about once a week. They are no longer just a curved levers, there is a nut that has to be loosened first.

My former bike only had the curved lever for a release, now totaled.

Most are curved in one manner or another today - I was referring to the change from flat quick releases in the late 70s to rounded, after the CPSC started complaining.



As opposed to my current hybrid that weighs a ton.

They'll still move if you sprint them, though not an issue here.



Your talking about my wife...mechanical is not in her vocab.

No comment.



Do you check every time? I check them everytime I add air, that's about once a week. They are no longer just a curved levers, there is a nut that has to be loosened first.

Every time, and mind you, I have 10 machines with Q/R's in my fleet. It's five seconds of my life, no more, and it can save you from far worse.

I'm not sure I follow you. The typical quick release has a nut that usually needs to be loosened after the lever/cam has been opened. If you haven't been adjusting that nut each time, you haven't been using it properly.

-Kurt

Only because folks refuse to take responsibility for leaving their quick release levers open.

If the world was perfect, bicycle manufacturers would be telling these blockheads that they can either learn how to use them properly, or bugger off.

Protecting the public from their own stupidity only increases overall ignorance.

-Kurt

A perfectly ridiculous position. People make mistakes. That does not make them dimwits. When small engineering changes can prevent serious injury when a person makes a mistake, the manufacturer should do it. That makes all of us safer.

Another example of tiny engineering chagnes that make a huge impact on safety is the valve now put on inflatable toys. Used to be that when you pulled the plug on an inflatable raft, or ring, or other toy, all the air would come out. Children drowned as a result. Now the valve has a stopper that requires you to squeeze it to let the air out (or put the air in). Those toys are much safer now. I suppose one could take the attitude that a parent who can't figure out how to close the valve properly should stop whining about the death of their child, but fortunately we aren't quite there yet.

Protecting the public "from their own stupidity", especially when such protection costs next to nothing, is exactly what a responsibile, caring society does.

Can you explain the rationale of the enthusiasts who go to the bother of filing them off? Weight savings, micro second time savings when removing the wheel, or what?

Yeah, it's freakin' hassle dealing with having to unscrew the QR and then readjust them again. I have two bikes without the LLips... both well over 25 years old... they have never failed me, and they are easier to release the front wheel for transport. None of the bikes has ever fallen off the bike hooks in my garage either.

The one new bike with the LLips takes more time and I actually have to be more careful to ensure that I am putting the skewer above the LLips... and NOT locking down on the stupid things, which would actually end up leaving the whole affair much looser.

With the old fashion QR levers... little readjustment is needed.

Yeah yeah I am not a racer, so what is a minute or two compared to the seconds it might otherwise take? In the overall scheme of things, it doesn't mean squat... but to me, it was "fixing a problem" that wasn't ever a problem... it's like seat belts on a bicycle.

I don't know anythng about the fork thingies of which you speak, but I know a bit about PI lawsuits. Assuming San-R's explanation is correct, the lawyer lips innovation is a perfect example of how and why product liability lawsuits are a good thing.

Bolting on a wheel was a good way to connect the wheel to the fork, but a quick release greatly increases the functionality of the bike. It made it much easier to transport, easier to change a tube or a tire, and otherwise was a very good innovation. I also understand how they would be easy to mis-use, or to at least install incorrectly. No need to bash the end user who does it wrong as an idiot who deserves to be hurt - from the manufacturer's perspective, someone out there was going to do it wrong, the wheel was going to fall off, and the guy was going to be hurt, maybe seriously. So, why not make a simple change and fix it, and thereby make your product signficantly safer?

So the manufacturers make a small, almost costless change to their forks and the problem largely goes away. It's true that it makes it a bit harder to get the wheel on and off, but that price is inconsequental when compared to the people who are not hurt when they don't use the quick release properly, but whose wheel does not fall off. Making a small change results in a signifcant increase in safety at almost no cost. All thanks to the threat posed by personal injury lawsuits.

Remember this story the next time someone starts bashing ambulance chasers. It's because of them that the world is much safer than it would be otherwise.

What you don't fully understand is that having these contraptions on the fork ends basically makes the quick-release a non-quick-release. The "lawyer lips" are not innovations and solely serve to castrate the effectiveness of the quick-release skewer by 1. making everyone wingnut the skewer to get the wheel off, and 2. making everyone wingnut the skewer to get the wheel on. One might as well use a bolt-on axle and carry a 15mm spanner! It may be a "simple change" to the fork dropouts, but that change almost completely defeats the real innovation that is the quick-release. Two steps forward, three steps back, anyone?

This really isn't a display of why product liability lawsuits are a good thing but a display of how we tend to require everyone to demote themselves to the lowest common denominator. Why can't we aspire to be educated/learnt, and to use tools as they are meant to be used without crippling them? (and the quick-release is a tool) Learning to use a quick-release is not rocket science, and to make it seem like so only demonstrates how oppressed we've become to the tyranny of liability lawsuits.




I noticed Peter White advocates using lawyer lipped forks if you have a front disk.

Peter White is advocating using lawyer lipped forks for disk brakes because the braking action of disk brakes with the brake caliper at the back of the left fork blade will direct a force towards pushing the wheel out of a conventional fork dropouts. Simply put, braking will produce a force that pushes the wheel out of the dropouts. If you know how to draw a free-body diagram, doing so will illustrate this very clearly.

Obviously, the best solution is not to specify lawyer tabs but solve the force directionality issue by either not having the dropouts face ~45* forwards, or moving the brake caliper to the front of the left fork blade. Where are the lawyers now?

When small engineering changes can prevent serious injury when a person makes a mistake, the manufacturer should do it. That makes all of us safer.

Good. I hope you will be the first to suggest the immediate worldwide adoption of the following:

Rubber automotive bodyshells
Blunt-ended nails
Closed balconies
Power tool ban
Padding for interior and exterior wall-mounted protrusions of any kind
Catalyst (for paint curing) ban
Ban on 110v AC electricity
and...
The removal of STI shifters from the market for because of the potential of skin becoming pinched between the moving levers and fixed lever body.

-Kurt

1. making everyone wingnut the skewer to get the wheel off, and 2. making everyone wingnut the skewer to get the wheel on. One might as well use a bolt-on axle and carry a 15mm spanner!

Better yet, go right back to the wingnuts of the 1930's and '40s.

http://www.wooljersey.com/gallery/d/101979-2/Velox_Ace_fork_ends_and_front_hub_wingnuts.jpg

-Kurt

Good. I hope you will be the first to suggest the immediate worldwide adoption of the following:

Rubber automotive bodyshells
Blunt-ended nails
Closed balconies
Power tool ban
Padding for interior and exterior wall-mounted protrusions of any kind
Catalyst (for paint curing) ban
Ban on 110v AC electricity
and...
The removal of STI shifters from the market for because of the potential of skin becoming pinched between the moving levers and fixed lever body.

http://www.cellphones.ca/news/upload/JethroTullThickAsABrick.jpg

Maybe the next STI upgrade should include airbags...

http://www.cellphones.ca/news/upload/JethroTullThickAsABrick.jpg

Disrespect to an Immoderator? We'll have to see about that!

-Lord Dark Helmet
"Your Posts Are Our Business, Especially In April"
or
"Lawyers don't give Dark Helmet no lip!"
http://www.jaysmarine.com/darkhelmet.jpg

What you don't fully understand is that having these contraptions on the fork ends basically makes the quick-release a non-quick-release. The "lawyer lips" are not innovations and solely serve to castrate the effectiveness of the quick-release skewer by 1. making everyone wingnut the skewer to get the wheel off, and 2. making everyone wingnut the skewer to get the wheel on. One might as well use a bolt-on axle and carry a 15mm spanner! It may be a "simple change" to the fork dropouts, but that change almost completely defeats the real innovation that is the quick-release. Two steps forward, three steps back, anyone?
Assuming that:

The principal use of Q/R's are for taking a wheel off for transport on/in a motor vehicle
Saving a few seconds when fixing a flat away from home is not that critical for most cyclists
Carrying a 15mm wrench or 6" adjustable is not that great a burden, especially in a motor vehicle
Cudak888 is correct in that many bicyclists do not understand how to properly operate the Q/R
An improperly adjusted Q/R is a catalyst for disaster


It seems an awful lot of crocodile tears are being shed for a sensible built in counter measure for the risks of a quirky feature of insignificant value that the manufacturers put on their bikes willy nilly despite their customers' track record of inability to safely use it.

I suspect many of the responses tell us more about the posters than the subject matter.

I'm familiar with a good number of safety features introduced to protect against hazards that seem easily avoided by cognizant users. Fairly often, these features can be modified to allow an advanced user greater access or funtionality considering their content. Lips on forks. Various guards on power cutting equipment. All that extra crap on cars.

That some people don't see the need for some of these safety features doesn't mean they're not useful. It's always a compromise.

I find the biggest hassle is the need to readjust my Thule rack fork mount all the time.