Thread for Items you Wouldn't Recommend?

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

spen666 wrote:

There could well be legal issues with a thread of this nature.

For example if you say X product made by ABC is not worth the money, the website organisers ie BikeRadar may find itself being sued for defamation by ABC

I am sure there is a disclaimer somewhere stating that the opinions expressed by contributors do not reflect the opinions of the website publisher host etc. Otherwise there would be lawsuits flying round.
.....

Sadly, for Future publishing and other webhosts such a disclaimer does not prevent the publisher being held liable for what is on the website!

Are you trying to build a client base for spurious lawsuits ahead of entering the private sector, Spen? Its a shame - we wouldn't see you on the forum so much, because you'd have billing targets to meet.

I have no interest in such cases. I am merely pointing out what the law is

Surf-Matt

King of Shaves Azor razor - all hype but utterly useless.

Oops - wrong website...!

For me it's overpriced but weak carbon kit billed as MTB biased. Bit like having walking boots made of pink silk.
Also Crank Bros are getting on my wick with silly priced kit and a rather "interesting" approach to customer service...

For the man that hates Conti Speed Kings - I have the Mountain King Protections - one puncture so far (glass sliver) in about 700 miles of thorny, glass covered, rocky terrain. Almost puncture proof, light and a superb all rounder.
Oh and I rate Altura Night Vision kit - got the jacket and winter gloves and both are faultless.

Wrath Rob

spen666 wrote:

There could well be legal issues with a thread of this nature.

For example if you say X product made by ABC is not worth the money, the website organisers ie BikeRadar may find itself being sued for defamation by ABC

Sorry, but that smacks of the thought police. As long as the post is accurate and reflects someone's experiences, whats the problem? If someone objects, then either the administrators of the forum or BikeRadar can have the post removed. I don't think anyone would disagree with that but to not post just in case someone might get offended is no way to run a forum. We didn't fight wars to offer our freedoms so easily etc etc etc

Personally, I like to see the opinion of others as it can help formulate my opinions/plans/rides etc. I'm not stupid enough to believe every post I read but if I see lots of posts saying that X is poor quality or Y doesn't work then its a fair assumption that there is some truth in those multiple posts. For that very reason I subscribe to Which. Plus, how many of us buy the magazines that pay for this site so that we can read product reviews, both positive and negative? Are you suggesting that those titles "throw" reviews for suppliers who buy large amounts of advertising? Perhaps they do? Perhaps Altura/Giant/Trek/Look own BikeRadar! My god, its a conspiracy!

On a more serious note, If I was a supplier I'd like to see the feedback, though I would agree that seeing excessively negative feedback in a public domain might not be good for business!

biondino

I wouldn't recommend Spen's posts.

always_tyred

Come to think of it, how does WhatCar, or Which? manage to stay in business, what with being sued all the time and all that? And the BBC? I mean, how does John Stapleton stay in work, he must cost them millions?

Risk is not binary - unless you are taking advice from an underinsured lawyer.

zombiejack

Surf-Matt wrote:

King of Shaves Azor razor - all hype but utterly useless.

Seconded!

Wrath Rob

Always Tyred wrote:

or Which? manage to stay in business

They are independent, paid for by their members and they use a rigorous process with many people testing each product. Therefore making it much easier to prove that what they report is accurate. I've been pretty happy to take their advice on lots of stuff and have no complaints, to date

giltkid

Its totally ridiculous to think that a manufacturer or retailer would or could sue Future for an opinion given by a consumer on a website it hosts. Is Spen666 a real or pub lawyer ?

il_principe

Can I add pretty much anything made by Altura to this thread. I used their stuff in my early commuting days and it was (without exception) sh1t. Badly made, badly cut junk that fell apart.

lost_in_thought

I like altura! :shock: And nothing of theirs I have has fallen apart...

In fact, pretty much all my commuting gear is Altura...

dirk_van_gently

RAV X combined pump and co2 inflator, bought from
http://www.skiwear4less.com/ via ebay
Exploded in my hand.
I did get my money back, after a fight.

Here's what it looked like after the explosion

spen666

Wrath Rob wrote:

...
Sorry, but that smacks of the thought police. As long as the post is accurate and reflects someone's experiences, whats the problem? If someone objects, then either the administrators of the forum or BikeRadar can have the post removed. I don't think anyone would disagree with that but to not post just in case someone might get offended is no way to run a forum. We didn't fight wars to offer our freedoms so easily etc etc etc

...!

Who has said that you shouldn't post things? Certainly not me.

Too point out that there MAY be certain legal issues with something is a million miles away from calling for something to be prevented.

The idea of banning something because there MAy be difficuklties is a risk adverse approach and would prevent in other fields innovation etc.

Being forewarned about potential problems is to be forearmed and allows strategies to be adopted to reduce risk. it may be the case that it is too late when someone objects to prevent a defamation action.

Also, be aware that defamation is unlike almost anything else in English Law in that the claimant does not have to prove the article or words are actually defamatory. He merely has to prove they are capable of being defamatory, it is then up to the publisher of those words to justify them.

ie if you say I molest goats, then to succeed in a defamation action, I only have to show you published those words. It is then up to you to justify those words- ie prove they are true. If you cannot prove they are true, then I win the action.

It is a reverse burden of proof and is why publishers have to be so careful. Additionally website publishers CAN be held liable for words on their website- even in message boards posted by others

spen666

Always Tyred wrote:

Come to think of it, how does WhatCar, or Which? manage to stay in business, what with being sued all the time and all that? And the BBC? I mean, how does John Stapleton stay in work, he must cost them millions?

Risk is not binary - unless you are taking advice from an underinsured lawyer.

see the post a minute ago.

It is not a problem to publish something that is critical. But if sued, the publisher must be able to justify it as well as the author.

Shimano are unlikely to sue you as you are not worth pursuing, but they may pursue future publishing if you posted something defamatory about them

singlespeedexplosif

I like altura! Shocked And nothing of theirs I have has fallen apart...

In fact, pretty much all my commuting gear is Altura...

seconded/thirded/whatever. Altura stuff rocks. I only don't have a purely Altura wardrobe because I've discovered the joys of Ground Effect, which rocks even more.

schlepcycling

spen666 wrote:

Wrath Rob wrote:

...
Sorry, but that smacks of the thought police. As long as the post is accurate and reflects someone's experiences, whats the problem? If someone objects, then either the administrators of the forum or BikeRadar can have the post removed. I don't think anyone would disagree with that but to not post just in case someone might get offended is no way to run a forum. We didn't fight wars to offer our freedoms so easily etc etc etc

...!

Who has said that you shouldn't post things? Certainly not me.

Too point out that there MAY be certain legal issues with something is a million miles away from calling for something to be prevented.

The idea of banning something because there MAy be difficuklties is a risk adverse approach and would prevent in other fields innovation etc.

Being forewarned about potential problems is to be forearmed and allows strategies to be adopted to reduce risk. it may be the case that it is too late when someone objects to prevent a defamation action.

Also, be aware that defamation is unlike almost anything else in English Law in that the claimant does not have to prove the article or words are actually defamatory. He merely has to prove they are capable of being defamatory, it is then up to the publisher of those words to justify them.

ie if you say I molest goats, then to succeed in a defamation action, I only have to show you published those words. It is then up to you to justify those words- ie prove they are true. If you cannot prove they are true, then I win the action.

It is a reverse burden of proof and is why publishers have to be so careful. Additionally website publishers CAN be held liable for words on their website- even in message boards posted by others

How would this work if what was said/written was a matter of my personal opinion. In your goat molesting example that's either a fact or not, you either do molest goats or you don't and I can or can't prove that. Whereas if I buy a piece of cycling kit and decide I don't like it for reasons of personal taste. For example: I buy a new saddle but I don't get on with it cos it makes my arse hurt so I say so on a forum and that because of that I wouldn't recommend that particular saddle. Do I need to be able to prove that it hurt my arse?.

biondino

spen666 wrote:

I molest goats

Context is a wonderful thing

spen666

schlepcycling wrote:

...
How would this work if what was said/written was a matter of my personal opinion. In your goat molesting example that's either a fact or not, you either do molest goats or you don't and I can or can't prove that.

Phew- the goat kept silent then after all

Whereas if I buy a piece of cycling kit and decide I don't like it for reasons of personal taste. For example: I buy a new saddle but I don't get on with it cos it makes my ars* hurt so I say so on a forum and that because of that I wouldn't recommend that particular saddle. Do I need to be able to prove that it hurt my ars*?.

It depends on what you say. If you said the above, then it is unlikely to be capable of being defamatory. If however you said that saddles made by X are sh*t , then that would be capable of being defamatory - unless you can prove it. Its a matter of which side of the line words fall. Criticism which can be justified is fine, its the rant that products made by X are crap type that are likely to be defamatory.

spen666

biondino wrote:

spen666 wrote:

I molest goats

Context is a wonderful thing

you don't know what you are missing out on

Big Red S

spen666 wrote:

Shimano are unlikely to sue you as you are not worth pursuing, but they may pursue future publishing if you posted something defamatory about them

I was under the impression that Shimano could request Future remove the posting, and then prusue defamation if thet don't.

I also have vague memories of a judge finding in favour of a message board along similar lines in the past (possibly abroad) on the grounds that it was personal opinion and expressed as such.

spen666

Big Red S wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Shimano are unlikely to sue you as you are not worth pursuing, but they may pursue future publishing if you posted something defamatory about them

I was under the impression that Shimano could request Future remove the posting, and then prusue defamation if thet don't.

I also have vague memories of a judge finding in favour of a message board along similar lines in the past (possibly abroad) on the grounds that it was personal opinion and expressed as such.

you are partially right. It iswhy I used the word MAY. As I said before it is not an absolute. It depends on when the words came to the knowledge of future publishing. Defamation will have occurred by the time Shimano in this example asked for them to be removed. They would still be entitled to damages for defamation, but the removal and an apology would greatly reduce the amount of damages

roger_merriman

mini pumps they never seem to pump, oh and bar ends which i buy once every 5 years or so and realise that i hated them before and hate them now....

Big Red S

I thought part of the reason Future employees don't moderate this forum (and never have) was so that Future could legitimately claim that Shimano's complaint was the first they'd heard.

biondino

When you think about it it's astonishing this forum is unmoderated but so even tempered and non-trolly!

Big Red S

It's not quite unmoderated, but it is alarminly friendly.

biondino

Like a drunken uncle?

always_tyred

biondino wrote:

Like a drunken uncle?

Do you need to talk?

spen666

biondino wrote:

When you think about it it's astonishing this forum is unmoderated but so even tempered and non-trolly!

plenty are off theirs though

jedster

anything by blackburn

rear light - kept turning itself off, not ideal
rack - snapped in a very minor off
track pump - stopped working with the presta adaptor

they carry what sounds like a solid warranty but I began to realise, sometime its the companies with dodgy quality reputation that HAVE to offer warranties...

apart from that

Chainsaws. Fair enough if you are a lumberjack but otherwise, you're just asking for trouble.

J

Wrath Rob

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

I like altura! Shocked And nothing of theirs I have has fallen apart...

In fact, pretty much all my commuting gear is Altura...

seconded/thirded/whatever. Altura stuff rocks. I only don't have a purely Altura wardrobe because I've discovered the joys of Ground Effect, which rocks even more.

I'm loving this as everyone now seems to think I'm an Altura hater, rather than the sweaty legged rider that I am (read my posts properly!). I won't revela that I've a 3 year old Nigh Vision jacket, 2 year old overshoes or 1 year old gloves

As for the law question, the whole topic has been made worthwhile for Spen's comments re goats that Biondino beat me to. Great minds my friend

Bassjunkieuk

I'm in 2 minds as to if I should add the infamous exploding Lidls track pump to this list.

On one hand it was only a fiver so I wasn't expecting anything superb and when it's not popping its top it does a fine job! It's that it requires your full attention to avoid having your head taken off as you watch the pressure gauge just in case the bl00dy thing explodes!

Asides from that there's not much else I can add as I haven't really purchased to much for my bike that I haven't liked!