Subject: Re: Lawsuits, Deltas and Trick Parts
From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Date: Oct 20 1996
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech

Edward Lipman writes:

> Next time anyone has an accident that requires any medical treatment
> as the result of a trick part breaking, why not give one of those
> 'no win, no fee' lawyers a ring?

> Some of these products seem to me to be a real menace.If you look up
> the failures compilation list, for instance

You'll be surprised.  I testify on cases brought by such lawyers,
however, my sample isn't unbiased because I get calls from lawyers
defending the industry rather than plaintiffs lawyers.  Every case I
have encountered, the plaintiff was lying and tried to pass of his own
stupidity on a component that was involved in the incident.  These
plaintiffs have been exclusively male and tell stories similar to the
faintly plausible BS that we see here on the net.  

Their tales are so familiar that I sometimes hit them a bit hard when
they harmlessly appear here.  These people are not aware, that someone
who has a technical eye and has experienced about every kind of
failure on a bicycle there is, can see through their ploys.  On top of
that, expert witnesses for the plaintiff are usually prostitutes who
tailor their analysis to fit the claims.  Leaders in this field are Mr
Green, Eugene Sloan, and John Forester (Defective Cycling).  I don't
know how these people live with their conscience, but they make money
doing it.

I am repeatedly amazed that the clues to the contrary are all there
after hearing the plaintiffs scenario of the incident (not accident).
I know how my bike and those of my riding pals looked after the
various things that can go wrong, and that you can tell whether a
wheel collapse caused a failure or the failure caused the wheel
collapse in most cases without the slightest doubt.

> you will find that Shimano and Campy hardly feature at all ... but
> that certain 'trick' bits come up again and again....

They big guys are not immune.  These plaintiffs do not discriminate.
I think real failures get adjusted without law suits.  Suing the
"trick part" guys gets you nowhere.  They are usually on the verge of
bankruptcy.  The often make it to the bike show once or twice before
the evaporate.  Some last longer, but they have just enough to remain
afloat.  A lawsuit would cause a circus closing with the silent
folding of tents and an empty field by sun up.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com> 

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Front Wheel Shimmy, No Steering, Crash! Cause??
Date: 11 Mar 1999 20:26:59 GMT

Brion Brooks writes:

>> I would like to see his explanation of the effects of alignment.  From
>> what you say, he "feels" which sounds like he is repeating urban
>> legend much the way of wreck.bike.

> The guy that I read is Jim Green. The book I read it from is: J.
> Green, "Bicycle Accident Reconstruction and Litigation," 4th Ed., p
> 11. According to the bio, he's the owner of an engineering firm, a
> gen. civil engineer with a specialty in bicycle accident
> reconstruction, a member of NSPE, a fellow in the ASCE and Nat'l
> Academy of Forensics Engineers, and a registered engineer "in
> several states." The guy also says he's an active triathlete who has
> raced Hawaii Ironman three times, is a 2-time USCF distr RR winner,
> and Tenn. Tri. Champ. He also claims to be a bicycle builder and
> tester.

He claims to be many things but in the cases for which I testified for
the defense against him, he was either lying or incompetent.  His
testimony did not prevail.  In fact he was thrown out in two cases
running concurrently in different courts because he told conflicting
"facts" that became known to to both cases.

From having read depositions with his testimony, he comes off like
some of the more opinionated defenders of myth and lore, citing no
technical reasons for his point of view, but leaning heavily on the
credentials he cites above to get you to believe unbelievable things.
I have had telephone conversations with his administrative assistant
who tried to get my computer analysis of the bicycle wheel for some
mischief in the courts.  The thrust was definitely not scientific but
an attempt at adding another item to his credentials.

> As far as his opinion goes, I see no footnotes or references to tests.
> I'll quote the relevant paragraph:

> "Another type of frame failure is total misalignment of the frame. This
> occurs when the tolerances are not correct in the casting of a molded
> frame, or the brazing and gluing of the lug frame.  Simply put, the frame
> is different on one side than it is on the other (it is asymmetrical).
> When this occurs, the rider can experience vibration, wobble, or continual
> loss of control while riding."

> Don't bother throwing mud on him, his opinion, or his bicycling pedigree.
> He's presumably not here to defend himself and I'm in no position to do
> so, even if I wanted to. Besides, there'd be nothing gained from a
> one-sided debate on the issue.

> Again, Jobst, I'm not calling you wrong. I'm not calling Green or those
> with his opinions wrong. I'm simply saying that, from this layman's
> perspective, I have now seen two divergent opinions from two apparently
> respected sources. Given that perception, I passed the info to the author
> of the post as a fwiw.

That's why I give you examples and methods by which you can test what
I present.  I don't ask you to take it on faith.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: Re: Best clincher tyres for road racing
Date: 19 Jan 2000 01:07:18 GMT

Rob Gray writes:

>> Sorry, people who flippantly use lawsuits as a counter for their
>> own negligence or ignorance piss me off.

> Gee. Should we care?

Yes.  The expense of legal protection against these suits, most of
which are not what they appear to be, makes the bicycle business, race
insurance, and restrictive rules an unfriendly burden on those of us
who want to ride bike, rather than get rich on someone's insurance.
Having testified on many such cases for the industry, I found that
expert witnesses for the plaintiff are either cleverly incompetent or
prostituting themselves for an income.  None of the cases had merit
nor did they prevail in court.  All of them were ego trips to cover
for rider error, some more incompetent than others.

>> Lawsuits don't solve problems, they don't make people feel better,
>> and they don't make you sleep better at night.

> Neither do drugs.  What have you been smoking?

>> All they do is make your favorite tires go bye-bye, and make the
>> other brands more expensive because of the now-required-by-law
>> "warnings" required on tires as a result of the case of "Rob Gray
>> vs. Michelin, Inc.". I guess Vredestein is one cut away from being
>> sued?

Well I don't know the specifics of that item, but the tire folks
follow the fads such as colored tires.  I wouldn't think of marketing
a non carbon black tire unless I had solid data to show that they were
as good in the wet and dry as conventional black tread.  They have not
demonstrated that in the auto industry yet.  That's why we see them
only on bicycles.

> Specious logic at best there. Let's say the person crashing on his
> Michelins slid under a bus and had his legs crushed.  No liability
> there?

And why did this person crash?  I think you'll have to show that the
cause was manufacturing flaw or rider error.  The way you state that,
it sounds as though you do indeed believe all crashes are attributable
to the product rather than the rider.

> I'm not a lawyer, don't advocate lawsuits, but any idiot can see the
> benefits of manufacturers selling consumer-safe products.

The only way to make bicycle tires consumer safe is to take them away
from the consumer.  I don't know any bicycle riders who do not fall
occasionally.  Most of these realize that they made an error but there
are some folks who do not recognize their own limitations.

On that note, an interesting item appeared in the national media today
under headings like: "Incompetence is Bliss" and the like.  It goes
on:

"There are many incompetent people in the world.  But a Cornell
University study has shown that most incompetent people do not know
that they are incompetent.

People who do things badly, according to David A. Dunning, a professor
of psychology at Cornell, are usually supremely confident of their
abilities -- more confident than people who do things well.

One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully
self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required
for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize
competence. ..."

On that note, being aware of this in wreck.bike, where this syndrome
may to abound, skepticism is advisable.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing
Subject: Re: Best clincher tyres for road racing
Date: 19 Jan 2000 21:18:10 GMT

Rob Gray writes:

> In the case mentioned here, a capable rider took a new pair of
> Michelins out on his standard neighborhood ride and crashed in dry
> conditions on a standard turn.  His error was in not being aware
> that this coating on the tires needed to be removed prior to riding.

I have been involved in many bicycle liability cases in which a rider
fell and made claims against the industry, you name it, the claims
were made.  Although I don't know the facts, this seems to fit the
syndrome, rider fall, explains his lack of judgment with a plausible
scenario that progressively sounds more credible until a claim is
made.  Invariably, the events were not as described, or at least had
glaring faults on closer inspecting from someone who has experienced
many ways of crashing on a bicycle, either personally or by a riding
companion.

> My only point was that till Michelin instructed its consumers to
> remove said coating, they were begging for a lawsuit.  Not that this
> person or any person should sue, rather that a manufacturer should
> make a modicum of effort to ensure the average consumer will not be
> injured by its product.

Having tested tires on paved drum testers and tilt bed pavement, I do
not see how the mold release or preservative coat of tire tread can
cause such a fall.  By the time a bicycle comes up to speed on a paved
street, any coating on the tire is gone.  On the many tire tests
performed, no one scrubbed the new tires used but merely put them into
the test where the tread was rapidly mat black, just as it is when I
put on a new tire and start riding.

If this were a problem, people should be falling off their bicycles
regularly because all main line bicycle tires are made in the same or
similar process.  I don't see that there is a problem if the rider
doesn't push off down a time trial ramp and make a steeply leaning
turn as his first maneuver.  Even then, I ma not convinced that it
would precipitate a fall.  What concerns me more are the colored tires
that have poor traction on wet surfaces and poor wear, but fashion
seems to be more important than safety.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Subject: Re: Effective Cycling
Date: 21 Aug 2000 22:06:36 GMT

Eric S. Sande writes:

> It's a general cycling text, that's all.  It happens to be the best
> ever written, but how many have been written?  To my knowledge, only
> two:  Sloane and Forester.  That's not even a contest.

It's interesting that you bring up Sloane.  He is another expert
witness (like John Howard and Jim Greene) that I have encountered in
litigation and he too, will testify to anything the plaintiff contends
against the bicycle industry and can usually make it stick on the
basis of their credentials.  I guess it give a feeling of power to be
believed absolutely by a jury once you show you ARE an expert.  This
works unless the defense attorney bothers to enlist an opposing
expert, something they seldom seem to do unless the defendant happens
to know of one.  I was called in on several such cases and found
plaintiff's testimony entirely concocted.  None prevailed in their
suit.

You'll may recall John Howard stating that all wheel QR's loosen with
time and must be re-tightened, so now we have lawyer lips.  At least I
don't know of any such precedent setting cases in which Forester and
Sloan were involved but there were many in$urance bucks involved..

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: How to know when to replace rim?
Date: 24 Aug 2000 15:55:56 GMT

Gary Young writes:

> I've often wondered this myself. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't
> imagine that car makers could make patently false statements about
> parts that effect safety without opening the door to huge
> liabilities. Is the difference that the amount of money is so much
> less in bicycling (parts are generally less expensive and injuries
> less extensive)? Even so, lawyers do have ways of bringing suit when
> small sums are involved.  Perhaps some enterprising lawyer will
> bring a class action suit on behalf of the thousands of cyclists who
> have been deluded by false claims and gotten less than fair value.
> Are there any lawyers here who can explain why this doesn't happen?

People sue all the time, actually men do this, but it's not for the
right reasons but rather to protect their egos.  From the cases in
which I was involved as an expert witness, all involved falling off
the bicycle for a stupid reason and to cover for that a clever
believable scenario was concocted.  The trouble with this is that the
mechanical evidence to support this is not there although there is a
cabal of "experts" who will testify to anything in front of a jury
that knows nothing abut bicycles.  In all cases the evidence showed
that the incident did not occur as described and that it was operator
error.

I don't know what the people with material failure and design flaws
do.  Their cases don't seem to be visible.  I for one, do my utmost to
avoid using these components so that I don't have a manufacturers
failure on my bicycle.  The cranks and BB spindles that have broken
all did so in a benign way and were replaced by warranty.  The other
failures could be attributed to wear and tear.  I haven't had any
cracked rims but these also could be argued to be wear and tear.  Just
how much a rim should withstand would be expensive to prove in court
although I know that in the absence of wearing through, they last many
10000 mile years.

I think the bicycle industry just squeaks by most of the time.  The
judgments against them are mostly these bagatelles of some guy who
fell and concocted a big story, hired an attorney who got an "expert"
to squeeze a few thousand dollars out of an insurance company.  No
precedent set!  Expert John Howard, on the other hand, got the "lawyer
lips" for us.  How can he sleep with that sleazy verdict to his credit
built on the big lie that wheel QR's always work loose with time and
are unreliable.  This after racing and riding on them for many years.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: How to know when to replace rim?
Date: 24 Aug 2000 22:43:44 GMT

Jon Isaacs writes:

>> Expert John Howard, on the other hand, got the "lawyer lips" for
>> us.  How can he sleep with that sleazy verdict to his credit built
>> on the big lie that wheel QR's always work loose with time and are
>> unreliable.  This after racing and riding on them for many years.

> I am interested in clarifying this a bit.  Did John Howard contend
> that a properly installed and tightened QR would "always" or even
> "might" work loose with time?  I wonder what sort of testing he did
> to establish this.

As an expert, he stated that in his experience, QR's were known to
come loose under normal use and that they must be checked for closure
before riding.  He said that one could not rely on having closed it
properly once, which is what plaintiff claimed was done.

> I think LL's may offer protection against an improperly installed
> wheel and I think they are some help for someone who is
> inexperienced with bicycles.  I certainly have never experienced a
> QR loosing up on its own.

Well neither had anyone else, but this was the transition from the
times when only racers had Campagnolo equipped bicycles with the
classic QR of the time and when everyone wanted to have a racing bike
and could afford it.  The result was that many folks who had neither
bicycling nor mechanical skills rode such bicycles.

The failure typically was that they didn't understand the lever but
used the screwed cap at the other end to secure the wheel manually.
Some do that today and complain of a loose wheel, fortunately with
lawyer lips.  These folks should not have QR's on their bicycles.  I
cannot imagine a good bicycle shop selling a QR bicycle and not
instructing the buyer on how to operate it.  Today, I think there are
instruction manuals that take care of that even if the salesperson
fails to cover all of it.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jbrandt@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt)
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Shot peening and anodizing
Date: 15 Feb 2001 19:10:32 GMT

Jay Beattie writes:

> Aha!  I always forget how the plastic/elastic/modulus/yield/tensile
> strength thing works.  Now I understand Jobst's earlier comments
> about HS drill bit metal having about the same modulus as coat
> hanger wire -- which didn't make sense to me at first.  You should
> do annotations.

I don't know how to make that clearer.  If you now read what I wrote,
you will probably see that your credence was reinforced by seeing it
repeated.  Not that others said it any more clearly.

> Anyway, IMO, a frontal impact capable of bending 4130 and breaking
> equivalently strong 6061 is great enough to launch the rider ala
> Superman.  In my experience, however, the rider on the Al bike will
> more likely sue because he will assume that the bike was defective
> because it broke and that the break caused the accident and not vice
> versa.  So the message to manufacturers is don't make brittle bikes
> even if they have a yield strength twice that of 4130 because they
> look dramatic when they break, and people will sue.  Make everything
> from 4130 -- or rubber.

Having testified on such specious claims, it is clear to me that this
has nothing to do with what the rider saw or believed, but merely that
someone else should take the blame for pilot error.

The routine goes like this: Hey Joe, I hear you fell off your bike.
How could you...?  To which Joe concocts a story to survive the
ridicule and embellishes it with technical trivia that make sit sound
good.  Next question: If that's the case you oughta sue those guys.
Next week: Did you see your lawyer...?  He is in a spot.  He works on
his story now that he has his bicycle buddies believing it and he
begins to believe he can pull it off in court.

All but one of the cases I saw was like this and was built on some
flaky engineering that one can hear on RBT regularly.  The trouble is
that there are prostitute expert witnesses on call that will testify
to support these claims and they get away with it unless someone
challenges them.  Their ploy is to cite references and authoritative
sounding work and then stating an opinion with out a stitch of
supporting evidence, evidence that is not there.  We have it here on
technical discussions all the time.  People don't realize that
testimony should stand on its own merit rather than by endorsement.

Jobst Brandt      <jbrandt@hpl.hp.com>

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Ron the courtroom whore? <Was: slipstreaming>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Message-ID: <eYTc8.2465$hb6.15736@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:48:10 GMT

Mark Hickey writes:

>> I remember reading about Ron Howard (the guy who went from cycling
>> hero to courtroom whore)...

>>What did he do? Should I remove him from my heroes list?

Make that John Howard and yes, you should remove him from your hero's
list.

> He was hiring himself out to those who had been injured in bicycle
> accidents as an "expert witness".  My personal favorite position of
> his was that "properly closed quick release levers open on their
> own".  It's that kind of thing that drives the cost of the equipment
> in our sport up as insurance costs increase to offset the cost of
> the industry paying people for being stupid.

It was his testimony that brought us lawyer lips, a feature of the
dropouts on less expensive bicycles that prevent the wheel from being
removable even when the QR is open... because, as he claimed, they
open by themselves.  On such an over-center device, this is like
saying the tennis ball came back over the net by itself on a serve.

What is sad about this is that lawyers have a registry of prostitutes
but not of real expert witnesses.  I have come up against these folks
in such cases and was able to disprove their claims easily.  Howard's
testimony was so ridiculous that I cannot imagine whom they called as
expert for the defense.

I got into the cases on which I worked because the "expert" cited my
book as a source of expertise, upon which some defense lawyers
decided, just by chance, to talk to the author.  It's usually the same
old story: "I crashed because the wheel collapsed." when in fact the
wheel collapsed because he crashed.

Jobst Brandt  <jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org>  Palo Alto CA

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Cinelli fully-sloping crowns- Mr. Brandt?
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Message-ID: <JD5Da.19109$JX2.1174537@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 18:18:17 GMT

Gary Young writes:

> I don't think personal injury lawyers pay much attention to
> bicycles.  Sure, there are some lawyers who advertise in the back of
> Velo news, etc., but they're probably suing drivers in most
> instances. If lawyers were constantly breathing down the necks of
> the bicycle industry, do you think we would be seeing ever lighter
> components, including things like titanium pedal spindles that we
> know break in fair numbers? How many decades did Campagnolo produce
> cranks that were prone to breaking? How many boutique companies come
> and go, putting ill-thought-out products on the market and then
> disappearing from view in a few summers?

I think you hypothesize about law suits of which you are apparently
unaware.  I have testified as an expert witness in defense of the
bicycle industry against many weird claims.  In most of these there
have been other 'expert' witnesses who will testify to anything a
plaintiff claims.  I have testified against such experts in most cases
of which none had any merit.  These cases are generally taken under
contingency and after I have shown that the claims are unsupportable,
cases are generally settled, everyone getting a little payoff
including the plaintiff (liar) and the game starts over.  In contrast,
most Japanese firms demand a judgment even if the legal fees are
greater, in the interest of setting precedence.  I favor that approach.

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Palo Alto CA

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Dumb question #3 - counting gears
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Message-ID: <xUYTc.7808$54.118147@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 06:56:29 GMT

Frank Krygowski writes:

>> "Defective Cycling" is a great one for half truths and misleading
>> "facts".

> I do not agree with every word in that book.  However, most of it is
> definitely correct, in my experience.


>> John Howard pandered to the plaintiffs claims as well brining us
>> "lawyer lips" long before the disk brake fiasco made them somewhat
>> useful.

> My guess is you're confusing John Howard (who is not mentioned above)
> with John Schubert (who is).  They are not the same person.

Not at all.  John Howard testified in a case where a rider claimed he
had properly closed a QR and that the wheel came out after he had
ridden some insignificant distance.  John Howard testified that as a
professional racer he was aware the QR's work loose and the the claim
of the plaintiff was valid.  The result at that time were lawyer lips
on dropouts of less expensive bicycles.  Only later when wheel
separations occurred on MTB's with disk brakes did these devices
become common and meaningful.  Road racers still want to drop a wheel
out fast and install a replacement one without these retention ridges
and they do so.

Besides, when I see an expert witness outright lie in a law suit, it
destroys his credibility altogether for me.  "I was lying then, but
now I'm telling the truth."  What can you believe?  I get involved in
these cases only when I see grave harm being done to the bicycle
business, be that a retail shop or a major manufacturer.  The retail
shop is the cruelest one where there is no deep pockets and insurance,
if it must pay, will often pull the plug or raise the premium beyond
what the shop can afford.

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Dumb question #3 - counting gears
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Message-ID: <A4aUc.7930$54.119401@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 21:56:48 GMT

Frank Krygowski writes:

>>>> "Defective Cycling" is a great one for half truths and misleading
>>>> "facts".

>>> I do not agree with every word in that book.  However, most of it is
>>> definitely correct, in my experience.

>>>> John Howard pandered to the plaintiffs claims as well brining us
>>>> "lawyer lips" long before the disk brake fiasco made them somewhat
>>>> useful.

>>> My guess is you're confusing John Howard (who is not mentioned
>>> above) with John Schubert (who is).  They are not the same person.

>> Not at all.  John Howard testified in a case where a rider claimed he
>> had properly closed a QR and that the wheel came out after he had
>> ridden some insignificant distance.  John Howard testified that as a
>> professional racer he was aware the QR's work loose and the the claim
>> of the plaintiff was valid.  The result at that time were lawyer lips
>> on dropouts of less expensive bicycles.  Only later when wheel
>> separations occurred on MTB's with disk brakes did these devices
>> become common and meaningful.  Road racers still want to drop a wheel
>> out fast and install a replacement one without these retention ridges
>> and they do so.

>> Besides, when I see an expert witness outright lie in a law suit, it
>> destroys his credibility altogether for me.  "I was lying then, but
>> now I'm telling the truth."  What can you believe?  I get involved in
>> these cases only when I see grave harm being done to the bicycle
>> business, be that a retail shop or a major manufacturer.  The retail
>> shop is the cruelest one where there is no deep pockets and insurance,
>> if it must pay, will often pull the plug or raise the premium beyond
>> what the shop can afford.

> I understand.  And, FWIW, I wouldn't trust John Howard on anything
> but, perhaps, advice on building a world-record motor pacing bike -
> even though it's not impossible for such a person to give valid
> advice on other matters.

> What I meant, though, was that the list of sources I cited did not
> include John Howard.

Well I have run into Sloan, Green, and Forester, all testifying to BS
that would fool a jury unless someone explained why their story was
untrue.  These were up to million dollar damage claims.

OK, so you need to hear the typical story:

I came across Forester more than once, the most recent time was about
a sponsored MTB racer who made up a cock and bull story how a flat
front tire caused his fall, claiming the flat was caused by a faulty
rim strip that cut the tube.  In fact he rode with too low inflation
pressure on a knobby large cross section tire after muddy trails,
descending a paved road where he rolled the tire that did not separate
from the rim.

When such a tire rolls to one side it gets snake bite cuts, not on the
side as though you were to pinch your cheek, but on the underside as
if you were to pinch your adam's apple.  Visualize pinching under the
chin and leaning the head to one side as the tire did.  This causes
the underside of the tube to get pinched.

The tube was about half the size of the tire volume, so when inflated
it was far larger than deflated.  The pinch slits caused by rolling
forward while lying to one side were spaced about as far apart as the
rim strip was wide.  Hence a plausible cause to an uninitiated viewer.
What doesn't work is that the tube would have cuts half as far apart
as the width of the tape (if it had been the cause) when inspected
because it shrank to its un-inflated size and would have marks half a
wide as the rim tape width.  Beyond that, pinch flats always have an
impression of the bias ply casing embossed into the rubber leaving
characteristic cloth markings.

Above and beyond that, the rider lied about the circumstances,
something that was brought out by the service log of the rescue crew
that picked him up... at home instead of painfully lying on the road
at the scene as he claimed.  Meanwhile he cooked up the story so he
could explain his crash to his peers as being someone else's fault.

In court, grazing incident photos clearly showed the cloth marks,
cited the circumstances under which they were made along with the
reconnaissance of the crash scene where there was a pot hole in the
apex of the turn that had to be avoided by cutting inside of it.  This
rolled the tire.

All this didn't seem to bother Forester who, if he is as astute as he
puts forth, should have recognized the whole scenario as I did.  His
claims did not hold up under scrutiny.  The bicycle shop was spared
disaster.

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org

From: jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org
Subject: Re: Dumb question #3 - counting gears
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.misc
Message-ID: <iSgUc.8039$54.120307@typhoon.sonic.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 05:39:26 GMT

Frank Krygowski writes:

>>  Well I have run into Sloan, Green, and Forester, all testifying to
>>  BS that would fool a jury unless someone explained why their story
>>  was untrue.  These were up to million dollar damage claims.

>> OK, so you need to hear the typical story:...

> Well, not really.

> Jobst, what you've described is a case where you disagreed with
> Forester.  You may have been correct, and he may have been wrong.
> But even though the courts apparently agreed with you, I'd hesitate
> to make my own judgement without hearing the explanation from the
> other side of the case.

I beg your pardon.  This is not contention, the evidence was blatantly
apparent and his scenario for the plaintiff was so flawed that it
jumps out at anyone who understands flat tires and elasticity of
tubes.  I gave you the criteria and evidence, I think you can see that
although it may not have been obvious to the average bicycle wrench,
it should be obvious to a person with Forester's supposed credentials.
I took the trouble to recreate the rolled tire with an identical new
wheel with the same components.

> Nonetheless, even if Forester were proven absolutely wrong in the
> case in question, that doesn't mean his advice is generally
> worthless.  Odd as it seems, intelligent and knowledgeable people
> are sometimes wrong.  Hell, even _I_ have been wrong at times.  ;-)
> (Perhaps you have too?)

I don't see why you intercede as an apologist for these witnesses that
lie on the stand.  Their dodge is that the subject is so arcane that
they just made a mistake.  That is not probable if you see what an
intricate fabric they weave to nail the defense of the bicycle
industry.

It means he lied or is incompetent.  It took some skill to present a
believable story that fit plaintiff's scenario.  He did that admirably
although it was all made of hot air that fell apart in light of the
evidence.  It's not that he was wrong, he fabricated an explanation
that fit the scenario his client wanted.  That is prostitution.  As I
said, I have testified against these guys and in the presence of
someone who understands the material, they stumble all over themselves
in their double talk.  I suppose you know that the truth is recounted
easily but to make fabrications line up under examination is tricky.
Just the demeanor of the witness makes that apparent.

> I know little about Sloan, except that his books seem to me to be
> filled with misinformation, and his publisher must have paid him by
> the word.  (Misinformation: his "700 centimeter tires" was a
> classic.)

> I know less about Green, but what I've read doesn't bode well.

He is a real ambulance chaser.  I had his testimony disqualified in
two cases at once because he told conflicting stories in a case
against Trek and Huffy using the same "evidence" to achieve opposite
results.  I was involved in only one of the cases and advised the
attorney to go see what Green was saying at the other court.

> I've met Forester and corresponded with him fairly extensively.
> I've also debated him in these sorts of forums.  Obviously, I don't
> think he's always right.  But I do think he's got a lot on the ball.

We in the local bikie community did not coin the name "Defective
Cycling" for nothing.

And I think we've beaten this sub-thread sufficiently into the ground.
Although you may think I'm wrong.  I don't think I said that but
experts who make money from testifying against the bicycle industry
are lowlifes.  "Why everyone knows that bicycling is dangerous" is
their point of departure.

Jobst Brandt
jobst.brandt@stanfordalumni.org