Back wheel fell off!

The Northern Monkey

that can be read so many ways... i'm not even going to begin

tri-sexual

under the supply of goods and services act 1982, you are entitled to expect a service to be carried out with reasonable care and skill, and that any goods supplied as part of the service will be of satisfactory quality, fit for their intended purpose and matching any description given.
therefore you should expect the bike to be safe and roadworthy, if it isnt there is grounds for legal action against halfords. there are conditions that apply though.

reading this thread, it is wrong to assume that a qr will loosen itself as you ride or will come undone if riden off road. i am sure it can happen because nothing is impossible but a properly fitted qr (all parts in good condition) shouldnt come loose in use.
if it does then the qr is too loose, qr is too worn or the dropouts are damaged.
if you can turn a qr when its in the closed position then it is too loose, i see this fairly regularly.
a closed qr require some force to lift before you should be able to loosen the qr, if it is very easy then its probably too loose.
good practice in qr lever positioning can also help in reducing the chances of the qr loosening, place the lever in such a position that if "struck" or tangled with undergrowth it will not effect the qr, i like to point the qr lever horizontally and facing the rear, front qr on mtb can be positioned so the the fork legs will prevent lever turning in case of accidents, undergrowth, rock stricks.

Mental Mickey

yeehaamcgee wrote:

How does the rear wheel of a bike come off, and the bike doesn't even get scuffed? Were you riding on cotton wool?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qLPdI7bZnI

weeksy59

andrewjoseph wrote:

Not checking a watch is secured or working properly is not going to get you injured or killed.

Not checking the wheels on a new car... I check everything!! .

If you buy a new car you go round all 16 wheel nuts and make sure they're all tight ? Caliper mount bolts ? disc bolts ? what about the brake reservoir cap ?

nicklouse

weeksy59 wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

Not checking a watch is secured or working properly is not going to get you injured or killed.

Not checking the wheels on a new car... I check everything!! .

If you buy a new car you go round all 16 wheel nuts and make sure they're all tight ?

yes if something feels ODD.

bails87

Surely the fact that it's a QUICK RELEASE lever should be some clue to the fact that it should be checked regularly. It's a part that's designed to be easy to undo. Personally I'd see it differently to, say, the wheel nut on a car or chainring bolts, which are something that I'll check after first fitting/replacing them, and if there's a problem/something feels or sounds 'off', but otherwise they don't get touched.

Just like you probably check the air in your tyres more regularly than you check the bolts that hold your exhaust on.

Anonymous

Pah, I check the exhaust clamps, manifold bolts, and cylinder head bolts every morning, and I NEVER check my tyre presure.
And I've only had two cars explode. Well, one, the other just went POP!

andrewjoseph

weeksy59 wrote:

...

If you buy a new car you go round all 16 wheel nuts and make sure they're all tight ? Caliper mount bolts ? disc bolts ? what about the brake reservoir cap ?

Now you're being just a little bit silly, aren't you?

No, just wheel bolts, these are the items that come off and on most frequently, they are also one of the items that can cause a crash.

If I feel the brakes (or anything else) are feeling 'off' then I take a look and do something about it.

Actually, I assumed you were talking about a car.

Every month or so, I check everything on our bikes, and I mean everything. I also log every ride and every change made, i.e. new chain, brake pads, new cleats on my shoes....

That way, if anything goes wrong, I know how many miles/months that part has lasted. This helps a lot with warranty claims. it also helps me avoid buying parts that don't last long.

But then, doesn't everybody do this?

cooldad

andrewjoseph wrote:

I also log every ride and every change made, i.e. new chain, brake pads, new cleats on my shoes....

That way, if anything goes wrong, I know how many miles/months that part has lasted. This helps a lot with warranty claims. it also helps me avoid buying parts that don't last long.

But then, doesn't everybody do this?

Only people with ADD. Or no life.

Valy

andrewjoseph wrote:

weeksy59 wrote:

...

If you buy a new car you go round all 16 wheel nuts and make sure they're all tight ? Caliper mount bolts ? disc bolts ? what about the brake reservoir cap ?

Now you're being just a little bit silly, aren't you?

No, just wheel bolts, these are the items that come off and on most frequently, they are also one of the items that can cause a crash.

If I feel the brakes (or anything else) are feeling 'off' then I take a look and do something about it.

Actually, I assumed you were talking about a car.

Every month or so, I check everything on our bikes, and I mean everything. I also log every ride and every change made, i.e. new chain, brake pads, new cleats on my shoes....

That way, if anything goes wrong, I know how many miles/months that part has lasted. This helps a lot with warranty claims. it also helps me avoid buying parts that don't last long.

But then, doesn't everybody do this?

Guess if you havea few bikes to keep track would be beneficial. But for most people receipts would probably be enough.

andrewjoseph

receipts will tell you when you bought it, not how much or little it was used.

andrewjoseph

cooldad wrote:

...

Only people with ADD. Or no life.

and your point is...?

Valy

Sure, though personally I only keep an eye on the cassette/chain for distance.

cooldad

andrewjoseph wrote:

cooldad wrote:

...

Only people with ADD. Or no life.

and your point is...?

Logging cleat usage. I need to clarify my point?

andrewjoseph

cooldad wrote:

andrewjoseph wrote:

cooldad wrote:

...

Only people with ADD. Or no life.

and your point is...?

Logging cleat usage. I need to clarify my point?

Not at all, I'm happy with my life... most of the time anyway.

bails87

Isn't it OCD rather than ADD anyway. Any irony in pointing that out?

cooldad

bails87 wrote:

Isn't it OCD rather than ADD anyway. Any irony in pointing that out?

Fair point
But my point was obviously clear enough.

ThePriory1978

Sorry to change the subject from back wheels falling off but as we are off topic anyway.

How can you tell when a Shimano cleat has worn out?

Question towards the guy who logs cleat use, obviously...

andrewjoseph

ThePriory1978 wrote:

Sorry to change the subject from back wheels falling off but as we are off topic anyway.

How can you tell when a Shimano cleat has worn out?

Question towards the guy who logs cleat use, obviously...

When it starts to come out when pulling up. This is takes a very long time apparently. I prefer crank bros and now time pedals, they use brass cleats which are designed to wear.

andrewjoseph

cooldad wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Isn't it OCD rather than ADD anyway. Any irony in pointing that out?

Fair point
But my point was obviously clear enough.

I too was being ironic, or even tongue in cheek, apologies if that did not come over.

The thing is though, I ride 5-6 days a week (well I was until I broke my arm last sept), I go through several chains in a year and maybe two cassettes, perhaps 2-3 tyres. I look after 5 of the families bikes. By logging everything, I can see what parts are value or not.

I have found that buying crank bros premier cleats saves money over the cheaper standard cleat, because they last me about 2 years as opposed to 9-12 months for the standard.

Being OCD with no life saves me money.

wheelygood

Don't blame others - it is down to you - every ride to ensure your bike is safe- and yes, if you value your own safety you WILL check before very ride. I always do- as folk have pointed out there are all sorts of reasons why a q/r can come undone. It seems to be the culture in this country these days to blame everyone else - it is your responsibility!!! If I was your missus I'd be checking my own too and not leaving it down to my other half! And while you are at it you should check brakes (especially if hydraulic), steerer, saddle, cranks etc as well before setting off. Should be part of mormal practice. There'd be far fewer accidetns if folk took the tiny few mintues to do so before riding AND after an 'off' on the trail! :roll:

Anonymous

wheelygood wrote:

And while you are at it you should check brakes (especially if hydraulic), steerer,

Why do you suggest that hydraulic brakes are more likely to fail than cable?
And, how do you go about checking your steerer tube? Do you dismantle the front of your bike before each ride?

supersonic

you just show on the balance of probability that it was likely.

It wasn't likely in my eyes. What was likely is that the rider did not check it before their ride when it could have been knocked or any number of things. Even if Halfords had not tightened it correctly, a check would have ensured it was.

The chances of getting anything from Halfords due to this are absolutely zero.

diy

SS - You are applying good common sense and expert knowledge, but a judge would be asking why it fell off and if the product or service was defective. the retailer would argue not, the claimant would put them to proof.

It would be difficult to convince a judge that this is just one of those risks with QRs.

Remember there is legal precedent that a fault developing within a short period of time is deemed to pre-exist.

Even if Halfords had not tightened it correctly, a check would have ensured it was.

which would leave the rider with a max 20% liability for any personal injury due to their contributory negligence, if the retailer could not prove that the checks had been made.

We all know that the bike builder signs off the job sheet and nobody else checks the job.

Anonymous

Where the hell are you puling 20% from?
Are you really just making this stuff up?

supersonic

Remember there is legal precedent that a fault developing within a short period of time is deemed to pre-exist.

But where is the fault? An adjustable item that should be checked and adjusted by the rider before a ride possibly wasn't. Surely there has to be some protection for the retailer from people who do not look after their kit. I can't see how it can be proven Halfords was negligent for an item of this type in this scenario. If the QR snapped when cornering or was examined and found had an inherhant fault then this is different.

It strikes me as that the time from picking the bike up, loading it into a van, transporting it and then unloading it is ample time for the lever to be flicked open some way.

Is a signed form proof? Does a retailer legally have to provide one for work done, and every single part that was touched?

I have repaired hundreds of bikes over the years, and find it amazing that if a QR came undone after I released the bike to the customer I would have to prove that I did it correctly when there has been an intervening period where it could have come loose.

Is my interpretation ;-)

cooldad

There's always someone to blame. Contributory negligence because a QR is loose? Give me a break.
Reading some of the stuff people post, I'm surprised they can flush a toilet without assistance.
Let alone look after something as technologically involved as a bicycle.

geoff93

Yes you should get a proper build, and you probably did, if it was really loose you would have felt it wobble. But at the end of the day it is down to you, the rider, to check your bikes are safe to ride, I do an M check every time I ride, for my own safety! We get people coming in to the shop to get a puncture fixed, and the next day they will be back saying it didnt work. Well it did as it was in the shop for days without going down and we do a proper job, its a new puncture. They will claim the inner tube was faulty, it's this kind of attitude that really annoys me. Not anger at anyone on here or OP, just venting on semi suitable subject

diy

yeehaamcgee wrote:

Where the hell are you puling 20% from?
Are you really just making this stuff up?

Statute : Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945
Precedent : Froom v Butcher [1976] and Owens v Brimmell [1977]

courts are reluctant to go above 30% and normally only go to 30% for a combination of negligence. e.g. failure to check and failure to wear a helmet for example. There is a single cap of 25%. I'm being generous with 20% it would likely be less.

The basic concept is that your own negligence cannot in itself defeat a claim for personal injury. But to be absolutely clear - if the retailer can prove that the checks were done, then they would have no problem with a defence of "Volenti non fit injuria" = not my fault gov.

The reason I'm pointing this stuff out is because folk are taking a common sense, playground law approach to this. While I totally support the argument "he should have checked it". Its not one that would defeat a claim for personal injury. Its wrong to tell someone its their fault when in Law it isn't.

And before anyone jumps up and down about compensation culture, its worth understanding the origins of the 1945 act to see that it came about to protect people from fairly despicable behavior, regarding duty of care.

supersonic wrote:

I have repaired hundreds of bikes over the years, and find it amazing that if a QR came undone after I released the bike to the customer I would have to prove that I did it correctly when there has been an intervening period where it could have come loose.

Is my interpretation ;-)

Well I'm sure you carry insurance for this sort of thing and repair is slightly different, but yes you have a duty of care and would need to prove you dispatched it.

Anonymous

Oh well, if you KNOW the outcome, then ahy even bother having a court case. Surely he should just be awarded the money now.