Arrghh! cheese..

David Martin

SOmeone has donated to our institute a couple of new 'Universal' bikes (one
diamond frame, one step through). These are being sold to raise money for
the new centre.

Unfortunately these bikes are cheese. I got dragged in this morning to fix
things so they might actually be rideable, ie set the brakes up properly and
so on.

The brakes are crap. They are almost impossible to adjust. One was missing a
washer which meant the brake block could not be tightened. They flex so much
as to be almost ineffective.

I almost refused to touch them but relented and muttered loudly comments to
the effect that whoever was fool enough to buy them should get them serviced
by the LBS before riding them, and that after setting the brakes up, that
the bikes wouldn't kill the rider immediately.

Are there not standards for things such as brakes?

Bleaghh.

...d

Mike Causer

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:42:50 +0000, David Martin wrote:

> I almost refused to touch them but relented and muttered loudly comments
> to the effect that whoever was fool enough to buy them should get them
> serviced by the LBS before riding them, and that after setting the brakes
> up, that the bikes wouldn't kill the rider
> imme.
>
> Are there not standards for things such as brakes?

Not for the brakes, but for the correct adjustment of them, since 1st May
this year.

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031101.htm


Mike

David Martin

On 14/12/04 11:15 am, in article
pan.2004.12.14.11.15.00.180365@firs...stname.com.invalid, "Mike Causer"
<mikec@firstnamelastname.com.invalid> wrote:

> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:42:50 +0000, David Martin wrote:
>
>> I almost refused to touch them but relented and muttered loudly comments
>> to the effect that whoever was fool enough to buy them should get them
>> serviced by the LBS before riding them, and that after setting the brakes
>> up, that the bikes wouldn't kill the rider
>> imme.
>>
>> Are there not standards for things such as brakes?
>
> Not for the brakes, but for the correct adjustment of them, since 1st May
> this year.
>
> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031101.htm

Thanks for that. Just sent a note to the person responsible as below (names
removed for obvious reasons.)

.....
I would draw your attention to the regulations regarding the sale of
bicycles here: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031101.htm

I had a look at the bicycles and upon request from XXXXXX assisted him in
adjusting the front brakes such that they appear to have at least a minimum
functionality.

I am not convinced (and am not qualified) to state that these bikes are
correctly adjusted, and am letting you know the relevant regulations so that
XXXXXX is not exposed to any legal risk, should the cycles prove to be
improperly adjusted or defective.

...d

Richard Goodman

"David Martin" <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:BDE47D9B.5AB2%d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk...
> On 14/12/04 11:15 am, in article
> pan.2004.12.14.11.15.00.180365@firs...stname.com.invalid, "Mike
> Causer"
> <mikec@firstnamelastname.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:42:50 +0000, David Martin wrote:
>>
>>> I almost refused to touch them but relented and muttered loudly comments
>>> to the effect that whoever was fool enough to buy them should get them
>>> serviced by the LBS before riding them, and that after setting the
>>> brakes
>>> up, that the bikes wouldn't kill the rider
>>> imme.
>>>
>>> Are there not standards for things such as brakes?
>>
>> Not for the brakes, but for the correct adjustment of them, since 1st May
>> this year.
>>
>> http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031101.htm
>
> Thanks for that. Just sent a note to the person responsible as below
> (names
> removed for obvious reasons.)
>
> ....
> I would draw your attention to the regulations regarding the sale of
> bicycles here: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031101.htm
>
> I had a look at the bicycles and upon request from XXXXXX assisted him in
> adjusting the front brakes such that they appear to have at least a
> minimum
> functionality.
>
> I am not convinced (and am not qualified) to state that these bikes are
> correctly adjusted, and am letting you know the relevant regulations so
> that
> XXXXXX is not exposed to any legal risk, should the cycles prove to be
> improperly adjusted or defective.
>

The problem is those Regs just say they have to be 'correctly adjusted'.
There's no definition of what that means, no defined standard of
performance, and no standard way to measure performance against a standard.
It's almost too woolly to be of any real usefulness, and in your particular
case you have now admitted 'tampering' with the adjustment while declaring
yourself unqualified to judge whether or not they are or were 'correctly
adjusted'. Your letter undermines the very purpose for which you sought to
write it - ie. to suggest a possible liability on their part were they not
to have been correctly adjusted. If you weren't satisfied with the
adjustment and seeking to coerce them into compliance with the Regs in this
case and in general, perhaps better would have been to take the unadjusted
bike to your local trading standards department and explain your concerns
and see if they would be willing to take it up, and/or seek expert evidence
of any problems and cost to put right and ask them to meet the cost.. Of
course, a lot of work for something that may be of small financial value.

The problem I have found with very cheap and cheesy bikes, however, having
come across a couple in a Dr. Bike session I once did, is that they were
virtually incapable of adjustment to do anything useful, despite being
virtually new bikes. Not merely a question of 'correct adjustment' but of
manufacturing something that could actually work to an acceptable standard
in the first place!

Rich

David Martin

Richard Goodman wrote:
> "David Martin" <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:BDE47D9B.5AB2%d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk...
>
>>On 14/12/04 11:15 am, in article
>>pan.2004.12.14.11.15.00.180365@firstnamelastname.com.invalid, "Mike
>>Causer"
>><mikec@firstnamelastname.com.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 10:42:50 +0000, David Martin wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I almost refused to touch them but relented and muttered loudly comments
>>>>to the effect that whoever was fool enough to buy them should get them
>>>>serviced by the LBS before riding them, and that after setting the
>>>>brakes
>>>>up, that the bikes wouldn't kill the rider
>>>>imme.
>>>>
>>>>Are there not standards for things such as brakes?
>>>
>>>Not for the brakes, but for the correct adjustment of them, since 1st May
>>>this year.
>>>
>>>http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031101.htm
>>
>>Thanks for that. Just sent a note to the person responsible as below
>>(names
>>removed for obvious reasons.)
>>
>>....
>>I would draw your attention to the regulations regarding the sale of
>>bicycles here: http://www.hmso.gov.uk/si/si2003/20031101.htm
>>
>>I had a look at the bicycles and upon request from XXXXXX assisted him in
>>adjusting the front brakes such that they appear to have at least a
>>minimum
>>functionality.
>>
>>I am not convinced (and am not qualified) to state that these bikes are
>>correctly adjusted, and am letting you know the relevant regulations so
>>that
>>XXXXXX is not exposed to any legal risk, should the cycles prove to be
>>improperly adjusted or defective.
>>
>
>
> The problem is those Regs just say they have to be 'correctly adjusted'.
> There's no definition of what that means, no defined standard of
> performance, and no standard way to measure performance against a standard.
> It's almost too woolly to be of any real usefulness, and in your particular
> case you have now admitted 'tampering' with the adjustment while declaring
> yourself unqualified to judge whether or not they are or were 'correctly
> adjusted'. Your letter undermines the very purpose for which you sought to
> write it - ie. to suggest a possible liability on their part were they not
> to have been correctly adjusted.

The letter doesn't do that. It brings to their attention that these
bikes which have not yet been supplied, may fall foul of the regs.

> If you weren't satisfied with the
> adjustment and seeking to coerce them into compliance with the Regs in this
> case and in general, perhaps better would have been to take the unadjusted
> bike to your local trading standards department and explain your concerns
> and see if they would be willing to take it up, and/or seek expert evidence
> of any problems and cost to put right and ask them to meet the cost.. Of
> course, a lot of work for something that may be of small financial value.
>
That is not a practical or politically acceptable solution. The best
thing was to write the letter bringing these regs to the notice of the
people handling the sale and indicating that they (as an organisation)
may be potentially liable. It is up to them then to decide what they
want to do with it. In future I will just refuse to do anything to new
bikes, citing potential liability issues as the reason.

> The problem I have found with very cheap and cheesy bikes, however, having
> come across a couple in a Dr. Bike session I once did, is that they were
> virtually incapable of adjustment to do anything useful, despite being
> virtually new bikes. Not merely a question of 'correct adjustment' but of
> manufacturing something that could actually work to an acceptable standard
> in the first place!

Absolutely my experience too.

piles of unadulterated crap.

...d

>
> Rich
>
>

JLB

Richard Goodman wrote:

> The problem is those Regs just say they have to be 'correctly adjusted'.
> There's no definition of what that means, no defined standard of
> performance, and no standard way to measure performance against a standard.
[snip]

However, a great many regulations are written in a similar manner and I
can assure you they do get enforced. People can be convicted of this
type of offence! Been there, done that.

It works like this. The prosecution alleges the brakes were not
correctly adjusted. If the defendant decides to contest this, it goes to
trial. The prosecution puts up an expert to explain what correctly
adjusted means and why the evidence shows this brake was not correctly
adjusted. The defence argues the contrary and may also argue that the
expert is no such thing, possibly by fielding its own expert. The
magistrate / judge / sheriff (no jury; this will be a summary offence)
decides who to believe and delivers its verdict.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

Richard Goodman

"David Martin" <martin-family@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:329d20F3gaavhU1@individual.net...
> Richard Goodman wrote:


>> It's almost too woolly to be of any real usefulness, and in your
>> particular case you have now admitted 'tampering' with the adjustment
>> while declaring yourself unqualified to judge whether or not they are or
>> were 'correctly adjusted'. Your letter undermines the very purpose for
>> which you sought to write it - ie. to suggest a possible liability on
>> their part were they not to have been correctly adjusted.
>
> The letter doesn't do that. It brings to their attention that these bikes
> which have not yet been supplied, may fall foul of the regs.
>

It looked to me as though you were talking about the particular bikes that
had been supplied to XXXXXX, and that you had made adjustments to those
bikes so that they were no longer in the state in which they were supplied
to XXXXX.

>> If you weren't satisfied with the adjustment and seeking to coerce them
>> into compliance with the Regs in this case and in general, perhaps better
>> would have been to take the unadjusted bike to your local trading
>> standards department and explain your concerns and see if they would be
>> willing to take it up, and/or seek expert evidence of any problems and
>> cost to put right and ask them to meet the cost.. Of course, a lot of
>> work for something that may be of small financial value.
>>
> That is not a practical or politically acceptable solution. The best thing
> was to write the letter bringing these regs to the notice of the people
> handling the sale and indicating that they (as an organisation) may be
> potentially liable. It is up to them then to decide what they want to do
> with it. In future I will just refuse to do anything to new bikes, citing
> potential liability issues as the reason.
>

Yes, on the point of generally drawing their attention to the requirements
of the Regs, fair enough. To follow my suggestion may well have just been a
waste of time and certainly not a short term fix. But even as a general
point your argument is somewhat weakened by your saying you are unqualified
to judge anyway...

>> The problem I have found with very cheap and cheesy bikes, however,
>> having come across a couple in a Dr. Bike session I once did, is that
>> they were virtually incapable of adjustment to do anything useful,
>> despite being virtually new bikes. Not merely a question of 'correct
>> adjustment' but of manufacturing something that could actually work to an
>> acceptable standard in the first place!
>
> Absolutely my experience too.
>
> piles of unadulterated crap.
>

On that we both agree!

Rich

Richard Goodman

"JLB" <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cpnv0s$fv1$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
> Richard Goodman wrote:
>
>> The problem is those Regs just say they have to be 'correctly adjusted'.
>> There's no definition of what that means, no defined standard of
>> performance, and no standard way to measure performance against a
>> standard.
> [snip]
>
> However, a great many regulations are written in a similar manner and I
> can assure you they do get enforced. People can be convicted of this type
> of offence! Been there, done that.
>
> It works like this. The prosecution alleges the brakes were not correctly
> adjusted. If the defendant decides to contest this, it goes to trial. The
> prosecution puts up an expert to explain what correctly adjusted means and
> why the evidence shows this brake was not correctly adjusted. The defence
> argues the contrary and may also argue that the expert is no such thing,
> possibly by fielding its own expert. The magistrate / judge / sheriff (no
> jury; this will be a summary offence) decides who to believe and delivers
> its verdict.
>

Sure. But it would be easier to prove one way or t'other if there was a
defined standard! ISTM that a lot of the brakes on cheaper bikes are
simply 'not fit for purpose' (there's another somewhat woolly statement, but
one on which the Courts are often called upon to make judgement)!

Rich

David Martin

On 15/12/04 12:38 am, in article 41bf877f$0$74687$14726298@news.sunsite.dk,
"Richard Goodman" <rsk@NOSPAM.homechoice.co.uk> wrote:

> "David Martin" <martin-family@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:329d20F3gaavhU1@individual.net...
>> Richard Goodman wrote:
>
>
>>> It's almost too woolly to be of any real usefulness, and in your
>>> particular case you have now admitted 'tampering' with the adjustment
>>> while declaring yourself unqualified to judge whether or not they are or
>>> were 'correctly adjusted'. Your letter undermines the very purpose for
>>> which you sought to write it - ie. to suggest a possible liability on
>>> their part were they not to have been correctly adjusted.
>>
>> The letter doesn't do that. It brings to their attention that these bikes
>> which have not yet been supplied, may fall foul of the regs.
>>
>
> It looked to me as though you were talking about the particular bikes that
> had been supplied to XXXXXX, and that you had made adjustments to those
> bikes so that they were no longer in the state in which they were supplied
> to XXXXX.

The point really is that the bikes are brand new, and whilst the law has
already been broken, selling them on with faulty brakes is in itself
illegal, irrespective of anything that has been done to them. The
regulations define the bikes to which these regulations apply.

...d

Richard Goodman

"David Martin" <d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:BDE5AC4A.5BB3%d.m.a.martin@dundee.ac.uk...
>
> The point really is that the bikes are brand new, and whilst the law has
> already been broken, selling them on with faulty brakes is in itself
> illegal, irrespective of anything that has been done to them. The
> regulations define the bikes to which these regulations apply.

Well, 'faulty' in the context of the Regs means 'correctly adjusted'. I'm
not sure what 'correctly adjusted' means, where the brakes might be so
cheesy as to be incapable of being adjusted in a way which makes them
effective. Does it just mean something like: 'adjusted in such a manner as
to make them work as well as they are capable, and at least part of the
block on each side contacts the rim on application of pressure at the
lever'? Or does it mean something to do with effectiveness in terms of
their stopping power?

Then, and most importantly in terms of liability, so far as 'supply' is
concerned, if XXXXX is supplying the bikes to the public then it is indeed
XXXXX's responsibility to see that the brakes are correctly adjusted.
Liability for any failure falls to him, notwithstanding that the brakes may
not have been correctly adjusted when the bike was supplied to him by the
manufacturer. In fact I suspect it is fairly normal for manufacturers to
supply only partially assembled bikes and for LBS to have to carry out all
pre-delivery assembly and safety checking/adjusting.

Rich

JLB

Richard Goodman wrote:
> "JLB" <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cpnv0s$fv1$1$8300dec7@news.demon.co.uk...
>
>>Richard Goodman wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The problem is those Regs just say they have to be 'correctly adjusted'.
>>>There's no definition of what that means, no defined standard of
>>>performance, and no standard way to measure performance against a
>>>standard.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>However, a great many regulations are written in a similar manner and I
>>can assure you they do get enforced. People can be convicted of this type
>>of offence! Been there, done that.
>>
>>It works like this. The prosecution alleges the brakes were not correctly
>>adjusted. If the defendant decides to contest this, it goes to trial. The
>>prosecution puts up an expert to explain what correctly adjusted means and
>>why the evidence shows this brake was not correctly adjusted. The defence
>>argues the contrary and may also argue that the expert is no such thing,
>>possibly by fielding its own expert. The magistrate / judge / sheriff (no
>>jury; this will be a summary offence) decides who to believe and delivers
>>its verdict.
>>
>
>
> Sure. But it would be easier to prove one way or t'other if there was a
> defined standard!

Be careful what you wish for... If the powers that be decide to do that,
it will put a stranglehold on development of new brake technology, just
as the old standards for bike lights have not been helpful with LED
lights. It will also create a committee that will sit for years
determining what to do, proabaly at tax-payers expense. Is it worth it?

With properly made brakes from respectable manufacturers there really is
not a problem. All the information needed to determine if a brake
supplied by, say, Shimano, is correctly adjusted is readily available in
Shimano's instructions; although if the brake is fitted with some
non-standard forks / frame / wheel it might need some intelligent
interpretation to work out if it is actually correct.

ISTM that a lot of the brakes on cheaper bikes are
> simply 'not fit for purpose' (there's another somewhat woolly statement, but
> one on which the Courts are often called upon to make judgement)!

I agree that this particular regulation is not appropriate if the brake
itself is not up to the job. That's because this regulation is aimed
more at the local bike shop than the manufacturer.


--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

David Martin

On 15/12/04 1:04 pm, in article cppcpb$oa1$1$8302bc10@news.demon.co.uk,
"JLB" <JLB@bigbad.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> With properly made brakes from respectable manufacturers there really is
> not a problem. All the information needed to determine if a brake
> supplied by, say, Shimano, is correctly adjusted is readily available in
> Shimano's instructions; although if the brake is fitted with some
> non-standard forks / frame / wheel it might need some intelligent
> interpretation to work out if it is actually correct.

Squeeze the lever, does it stop the bike?

Ie does it comply with C&U regulations.

Simple really.

In teh case described, neither front brake would have done so.

It would be a get-out if the cycle was supplied as a kit including
instructions on how to adjust the brakes, or (if I read teh regs correctly)
it was a recumbent..


...d

David Martin

On 15/12/04 1:48 pm, in article
Sniper8052.1hb6bz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com, "Sniper8052"
<Sniper8052.1hb6bz@no-mx.forums.cyclingforums.com> wrote:

> I would suggest however that the purpose
> of the statute is not to make it impossible for second hand cycles to
> be sold and that any test of funtionality would have to be based on an
> 'acceptable standard' of use, such that a caring parent may apply.

The regulations specifically exclude second-hand bikes.

...d

JLB

Sniper8052 wrote:

>
> Sniper:#
> If there is no definition of the correct adjustment in the statute it
> follows that this is yet to be determined and that will be done by case
> law.

Agreed.

> To most persons a correctly adjusted brake would be one which stops the
> travel of the bike without excessive play or pull at the lever and which
> does not foul or otherwise display an obvious fault, IE sticking after
> application.

Agreed, it is very unlikely a court would get much further than
requiring that.

> I would suggest these regulations would be almost impossible to
> enforce,

I have considerable enforcement experience with "goal-setting"
legislation, and this Regulation would not be half so difficult as some
of the vague nonsense I've tried enforcing. If it was my job I'd be
quite happy to have a go with this Regulation, assuming one or more of
the faults you have outlined above could be tied in to the way the brake
was adjusted (rather than the way it was designed).

> Question, since anyone can be a cycle mechanic and there are no
> compulsory professional qualifications how can anyone be an 'expert'
> above the point where a brake works within the above limits, IE it
> stops the bike smartly and functions with no apparent faults.

Quite seriously, the most useful definition I have for an "expert" is
somebody who knows more about a given subject than anyone else in the
room. How that expertise is demonstrated so that a court will accept it,
and therefore allow the expert to state opinions, depends on the given
subject. As you say, there are no national qualifications in bike brake
adjustment, so it would probably be down to impressive experience. To be
fair though, I'd expect that most of the time, if this Regulation was
breached, it could be demonstrated without producing an expert.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap