Originally Posted by LWaB
1 Not that I've found, on anybody over the age of five.
2 True, but they do actually say 'Open' and 'Closed'. That obviously is meaningless to lawyers' clients.
3 Simply riding into big potholes could also cause catastrophic accidents.
4 Only if you point QRs in such a manner to allow this AND ride 'dangerously close' to objects.
5 Not if the front disc brake is mounted on the RH fork blade or in front of the fork blade. This is a fork manufacturer's problem regarding brake location, not a QR problem.
6 It is amazing how many things on a bike or virtually anything else can be tightened when not fully seated (seatpost, handlebar stem, etc).
For number one, a large number of people (my 23-year-old, slightly-built daughter included) find QR's hard to close.
For number two, I'm not trying to argue that folks who don't close their QR properly have grounds to sue. I'm merely saying that what I describe has happened (MANY times!).
For number three, ditto my comment for number two, and I agree that cycling is not without other hazards (although this is a spurious arguement in this context).
For number four, you are right, although (again) this has happened MANY times.
For number five, I don't argue that fork manufacture or disc-brake manufacture changes could solve this problem, but for the installed section of the existing market, the potential still exists.
For number six, you are right again, but the arguement is spurious in this context - we're talking about the safety engineering of QR mechanisms.
You ignore my final statement: If a one-hand, positive-lock mechanism can be designed at the same weight as existing QR levers WHY NOT?