Great news for cyclists. It sounds like the gentleman involved is very lucky to be alive.Over the years i,ve heard of material failiure, bars, seatpins and seatpin bolts,cranks e.t.c.in most of those cases the riders concerned were lucky if they were offered a replacement for the part which failed, althugh none were seriously injured`Ademort

The bike was three years old and had been ridden for thousands of miles during which it had been involved in at least one other accident (with a pedestrian). The manual supplied with the bike specifically states that ultra-lightweight components (such as the handlebars fitted) need to be checked regularly and replaced periodically. No-one witnessed the accident and the rider has no recollection of it.

Yet despite this, the possibility that one side of the bar had a defect (that wasn't present in the other side, which was tested by expert witnesses) is more likely than the fact he fell off and snapped the bar?

How is a manufacturer supposed to rider-proof components for years beyond the guarantee they already offer and regardless of how the bike has been used?

Ademort, I hope you were joking when you said this is "great news for cyclists"!

If people are ignoring guidelines set out in bike manuals and not periodically checking parts (especially 3 year old parts) for defects, then accidents are going to happen! If people then start taking retailers or manufacturers to court every time something breaks through wear and tear then we are quickly going to see a number of cycling related companies closing down. Not only that, the cost of bikes/parts will go through the roof to cover the cost of extended warranties and any potential legal costs.

As far as i'm concerned this is terrible news for cyclists!

It is a damning indictment of Enlgish law that a judge can ignore the testimony of two expert witnesses and chose that of a third. Imagine a jury returning an 8:4 not guilty verdict and the judge saying he agreed with the minority of the jurers and finding the defendant guilty.

The judge had no technical background to aid him in making a descision, which is surely why the court takes advice from expert witnesses in the first place. If the majority of the expert witnesses advise the judge that there is no case to answer why side with the minority? It makes a mockery of the system.

Unfortunately the legal profession almost always close ranks and support and defend their own. The end result is that it is very unlikely that any English court would disagree with the original judge's verdict since it would call into question the soundness of the system that pays the professions largely unjustifiable salaries.

This is not just bad for cyclists, but potentially damaging for virtually every consumer in the country. If the damages are awarded are large enough then the insurance premiums of importers of all sorts of goods will go through the roof. Small specialist importers could be driven out of business. And it doesn't just apply to importers, small manufacturers could be affected too.

Worse yet it could mean conditions being imposed on bike parts or even complete bikes like those imposed on safety gear which state you have to dispose of the item after an accident. It's one thing to fit new seatbelts to a car after a smash, or buy a new helmet after a fall, but to be forced to buy a whole new bike because you fell off? The industry would love that, they could sell us loads more gear.

Hi my first comments were in reaction to the initial story. I did not know that the bike was involved in an accident with a pedestrian, you obviously know a lot more about the case than i do. As far as people not reading manuals or regularly checking the parts for wear or damage then there is nothing that says this gentleman did not do that, or did he admit this, again theres nothing in the story.The bike was ridden for thousands of miles, again i do not see that in the story, my first comments were on reading the above story, if this rider was negligent in any way then of course it changes everything. Does anyone have a link where i could read more about this case it would be much appreciated, greetings Ademort

Ademort,

Here is the full judgement:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2007/1667.html

My self i'm thinking the old fella just anouther git thats seeing a way to screw cash for notning and a trueley believable reaction by the first judge were they golfing buddies or something " funny handshake rooled up left trouser leg" stuff break's and if you riden 1000's of miles on a 3 year old bike and never checked it or had it serviced in that time then more fool you . I hope ATB go all the way with this one "They never made the part" and as my final point and anyone who rides of road will probly agree " it's allway's our fault when we crash no one's else's even if a part fails youtube can confrem that look at [ snnapped forks ] you'll see what i mean

I've just read virtually all the report and from what I can see the evidence says the bars were defective! Bang to rights as far as I'm concerned. Maybe this will be a wake up call to manufacturers and distributors, don't sell shody material.

As for 'terrible news for cyclists' what about the bloke who suffered brain damage because something that has now twice in court of law been proven not to be his fault. I've been through a court case that involved a bike accident and serious damage to myself and took a number of years to settle, not only is the physical side of the accident a heavy stress to bear but the court battle can be even worse so I say all power to him to taking this fight on and winning. Hope he gets the settlement he deserves.

I'm afraid that I'm in the "Good day for cyclists" camp. Manufacturers and importers will have to take another look at safety and will have to emphasise to customers that good practice with regard to safety and maintenance are vitally important.

One of the importer's experts is clearly talking bollocks. The methodology of the other was a bit suspect and he hadn't carried out an SEM. You have to ask yourself why not!

Having reviewed the SEM, which is by far and away the best evidence the court saw, both of the claimant's experts agree it was a ductile fracture not a pre-existing crack.

The ped incident was, apparently, minor. He didn't even come off.

It was the South Downs not Coed y Brenin! I'd be happy taking a road bike down there! :)

Remember that this hearing only established the overall liability. On the balance of probabilities, it is more likely that the initial defects of the bar caused the accident than fatige/operator error.

His damages may well be decreased for failing to check and/or replace the bar etc. However, without access to an SEM, how exactly do you look for microscopic fractures in aluminium? :(

Regardless of who was right and who was wrong, the lesson is pretty clear:

Replace your bars regularly!

I replace mine every year off-road and every two years on the road, or immediately after any crash. That's the price you pay for having lightweight components!

The Consumer Protection Act of 1987 allows a person to sue for compensation for death, personal injury or damage to personal property (subject to a minimum value) caused by a defective product. The court has to consider how the product was marketed, any warnings or instructions supplied with it, what might reasonable be used for and when the product was supplied. The court will also look at any contributary negligence. Previous to this there was case law which was at best unclear but mast suppliers would have taken out insurance against as a matter of course.

The consumer must be able to show on the balance of probabilities that the defect in the product caused the damage. The consumer does not have to prove negligence - just that the product was faulty.

The supplier has six defences of which the most relevant here could be that the defect was not in the product at the time it was supplied, i.e. if the defect was introduced after supply by wear and tear or by unrepaired crash damage. There are time limits on making any claim.

Just imagine if it was you who was damaged and couldn't work or even ride again because of a defective product how many would turn round and say "well, thats life!"? Not many I bet. The liability has to fall on someone and why not the supplier of the defective goods. The law forces manufacturers into minimising defects - nothing that the consumer has any control over. Manufacturers and suppliers will have insurance cover to cover such liabilities - how many of us could affort insurance to covera lifetime of income lost if we couldn't work ever again? Again not many I bet.

All in all clearly good news for us as cycling consumers. The fact that there have been few cases in the last 21 years shows that suppliers and manufacturers havegenerally taken a proactive approach to defect reduction. The court case shows that the law is working. The court case doesn't change anything - the world hasn't tilted on it's axis. No doubt a number of manufacturers will review their QC procedures. As for the rest of us - let us be glad the law is for us.

Having read the full judgement it appears that it was the right decision. J...2TS fails to understand the consumer protection laws which we all benefit from. The evidence showed that the failure was due to material defect at manufacture. It is the importer who is liable under UK law - they take the money in the UK when times are good. If not how can the single person tack things up with the OEM who is off shore in the Far East. If your TV busts after 2 years do you take it up with Sony or the shop/importer?

Do all the stickers that come on new "Mountain" Bikes that say "Not for off-road use" mean nothing? I thought the only point in them was to stop situations like this.

The bike was second hand! The guy fully admits to having crashed into a pedestrian on another occasion, and I bet he ain't no Sam Hill either.

When are people in this country going to stop blaming everyone else for thier dim witted stupidity when some thing goes wrong.

I dread to think where this might lead - I've quite often seen idiots riding down the street with helmets on Backwards and forks mounted backwards too. How is the cycling industry supposed to survive if Half wits like these are given the go ahead to sue when thier ramshackle bikes fail.

I ride hard off road every day - I'd expect to have to replace my WHOLE bike every year. I've had parts fail - but the sport we do IS dangerous that's why it is exciting.

If you buy a squash raquet it's warrenty is void as soon as you use it.

In a hard sport like mountain biking thier must be some limit to the come back on a 4 year old second hand already crashed handlebar

Mike - this wasn't a supermarket "Mountain Style" Bike it was a decent Marin full suss. They don't come with those stickers.

BoF - have you read the case or even any of the commentary? The bike was bought new not second-hand, the crash with the pedestrian was minor and even the importer's own expert agreed that the break was most likely from a manufacturing defect after he was shown the SEM.

I guess companies have to do stress tests for 10 years or more to prove it was not their fault.

I think this is totally BS, a bike that has been used and abused for years and then out of the blue the handle bar cracks and company is liable, BS flag on a heartbeat.

The outcome of this lawsuit makes me reach MHR just by reading it. Items do fail, that is why you take it to a reputable bike shop for monthly, bi-annually, whatever the case, to double check everything. I would have sympathy if this happened a week from purchasing the bike, but for a bike a few years old... outrageous! They should test the judge for high levels of testoterone, LOL!

G'day

Ah, psiturbo, I think you need to go and read the judgement ... you seem to have the wrong of the stick there with some of your statements. For starters the bike was not "abused for years" ... it was actually well maintained. Second there was evidence to suggest that the left hand bar was weaker and that was confirmed in the appeal.

Regards

Andrew

It certainly appears that Mr Ide looked after his bike and had it serviced regularly etc. Having read the judgement, it is pretty clear that this is an exceptionally unfortunate incident. To snap where it did - mid bend rather than at the stem does indicate a flaw in the structure rather than the stem being over-tightened or the bar being scored. On top of this in post accident tests with the remains of Mr Ide's bar and similar others, none of the others broke, they bent, yet Mr Ide's broke! Thankfully, this is very rare, but as the the Judge has ruled in accordance with our law, the importer/supplier is liable. I'm sure they're insured and I'm also sure that the guys at ATB are gutted for Mr Ide. Rather than be a worrying precedent, it should be reassuring that the law has done its job - in this case at least.