View Single Post
Old 09-12-11, 04:04 PM
  #168  
RJM
I'm doing it wrong.
 
RJM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,875

Bikes: Rivendell Appaloosa, Rivendell Frank Jones Sr., Trek Fuel EX9, Kona Jake the Snake CR, Niner Sir9

Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 9742 Post(s)
Liked 2,812 Times in 1,664 Posts
Originally Posted by critofur
Using the English language the way people expect it to be used is important in situations like this. "Collision" implies running into someone when talking about locomotion on the road, be it car, bicycle, train, whatever.
Most people wouldn't expect this damage to be covered under warranty. Think of it like this, if you took that bike off road and bunny hopped some tree roots, a few boulders ect this type of damage could/would probably occur. That would be considered misuse and a collision...a collision with the ground in a way not intended by the manufacturer when the bike was produced.

But you still refuse to see there is any other way of looking at this, so I don't know what else to tell you. Too bad your frame broke, next time buy a mountain bike to bunnyhop obstacles with.
RJM is offline