Suing Halfords for £1m
Discussion
must be more to it than that? Total frame failure leaves victim disfigured and Halfords blame it on adding lights and mudguards?
Unless it could be proven the items interfered with normal operation, i.e the mudguards jammed the front wheel causing a faceplant into the barrier and the accident caused the frame to snap, it sounds like an accident
But youd have thought if the frame had failed, it would be fairly obvious
I think it would actually be fairly obvious to a reasonable engineer whether the frame failed or the rider did something silly, either through riding or modification
Unless it could be proven the items interfered with normal operation, i.e the mudguards jammed the front wheel causing a faceplant into the barrier and the accident caused the frame to snap, it sounds like an accident
But youd have thought if the frame had failed, it would be fairly obvious
I think it would actually be fairly obvious to a reasonable engineer whether the frame failed or the rider did something silly, either through riding or modification
47p2 said:
Halfords said:
Halfords’ claims that Mr Love had damaged the model by adding lights and mudguards after purchasing
Interesting statement above as it would mean 99.999% of all bikes on the road were unfit as most owners upgrade components, add lights, fit mudguards etc.
Justin Cyder said:
Even more interesting as I'd bet my mortgage that at the point of collection, the guy from Halfords' bike department (pictured) would have tried very hard to sell the plaintiff extras to add to his bike, such as...lights & mudguards.
Good point, well made. I've never walked from a shop with a new bike without some attempt at selling me "some essential extras, sir?"Further to this point, where would this leave the law on lights after dark?
"Sorry officer, I really wanted to fit some lights, but a fairly senior chap at Halfords said it would invalidate my frame warranty."
Surely anything (properly) fitted to the bike which is available to buy from Halfords is safe to fit to a bicycle? Halfords surely wouldn't sell me something that was anything less than thoroughly tested and safe for use?
It also calls into question the gulf between the advertising copy for a product, and it's true intended use.
In this case it's the "£250 Saracen Raw 2" mountain bike, which, in the words of Halfords themselves is designed to “give the trails a kicking”. I'd hazard a guess that there are little yellow stickers somewhere on the frame and forks stating that the bike isn't designed for certain grades of off road riding, or something along those lines.
I'm torn as to what to think about this particular case. There's every chance that the plaintiff was doing something daft with the bike, expecting too much for his £250, and therefore ought to 'suck it up', accept it was an accident and move on. On the other hand, if Halfords sales literature overplayed the bikes capabilities, and the plaintiff was left believing it was a more robust machine than it actually was intended to be, then Halfords ought to lose. This might then teach the advertising agencies to sell a product with more realistic claims and images. In short, if it's a BSO, then admit it, and sell it as one. Or quit selling bikes at that price point, if you want to make claims about them being "trail-ready".
I cannot comment on the amount involved, it's a very large figure after all, so I doubt represents some kind of calculation based on lost earnings and hardship etc.
BUT I have little sympathy for Halfords, they, along with most supermarkets and toy shops sell a lot of bikes with spiel attached which would lead the uneducated on the subject to believe they are built to handle anything. Some of the crap they spill on the boxes is laughable - I've never understood how they got away with it for so long when the high-end manufacturers list all sort of caveats, issue rider weight limits and intended applications. If this case means they are honest that these sort of 'looks like a mountain bike' bikes shouldn't be taken on anything more than a council cycle path then I think it's been worth while.
Anyway, in this case, the guy has used it for it's intended purpose, after-all it's advertised that it can be used on any trail! The steerer tube has failed which is absolutely unforgivable and he's ended up with a smashed up face. Their excuse they he's fitted lights and a mud guard is straw clutching at it's finest - unless he fitted with self-tapping screws straight into the frame.
BUT I have little sympathy for Halfords, they, along with most supermarkets and toy shops sell a lot of bikes with spiel attached which would lead the uneducated on the subject to believe they are built to handle anything. Some of the crap they spill on the boxes is laughable - I've never understood how they got away with it for so long when the high-end manufacturers list all sort of caveats, issue rider weight limits and intended applications. If this case means they are honest that these sort of 'looks like a mountain bike' bikes shouldn't be taken on anything more than a council cycle path then I think it's been worth while.
Anyway, in this case, the guy has used it for it's intended purpose, after-all it's advertised that it can be used on any trail! The steerer tube has failed which is absolutely unforgivable and he's ended up with a smashed up face. Their excuse they he's fitted lights and a mud guard is straw clutching at it's finest - unless he fitted with self-tapping screws straight into the frame.
yellowjack said:
It also calls into question the gulf between the advertising copy for a product, and it's true intended use.
In this case it's the "£250 Saracen Raw 2" mountain bike, which, in the words of Halfords themselves is designed to “give the trails a kicking”. I'd hazard a guess that there are little yellow stickers somewhere on the frame and forks stating that the bike isn't designed for certain grades of off road riding, or something along those lines.
Good point, remember meeting a bloke halfway down one of the bigger descents at 'degla. His front wheel had snapped, actually snapped so it was one long piece of metal.... "Bloke who sold this to me said it would be good for off road" came his comment, but frankly I wouldnt have jumped it off a kerb. He looked at my wheels and suggested he needed thicker wheels too.... I politely said he should look at the warnings on the trail heads and take heed and do a bit of research, £99 specials are not for black runs.In this case it's the "£250 Saracen Raw 2" mountain bike, which, in the words of Halfords themselves is designed to “give the trails a kicking”. I'd hazard a guess that there are little yellow stickers somewhere on the frame and forks stating that the bike isn't designed for certain grades of off road riding, or something along those lines.
I told Mrs Maul of the incident, she said I was rude and perhaps the bloke couldnt afford the kind of bike the warnings suggest. Maybe true, but if you want to jump out of a plane but cant afford a parachute, don't use a tablecloth instead and act surprised when it goes tits up. Ok, black runs are not as risky as jumping out of a plane, but we have all seen things go very badly wrong for those whose ambition exceeds their talent or their gear
Feel sorry for the bloke in question, sounds like its messed up his life but as per my earlier post, I don't see it needs more than a mildly competant engineer to look at the frame and determine cause and effect
Brite spark said:
Unless he had drilled through something to fix bits in place on the bike it's a stupid statement from halfords
Good point. I didn't think of that as I didn't think that anyone would be so stupid.Sometimes I forget that there are many, many dumb people around who would do something like that
Tripping on a paving slab and spraining your wrist is something you can probably get over. Whereas having the steerer snap on a bike at speed causing you to hit a barrier with your face which leaves you disfigured for life, is a different matter all together. If the bike was faulty and was the cause of this life changing event then I think its right to be compensated for that. I'm sure the lad in question would rather have his face back as it was but this legal action is the 'next best thing'. Indeed any payout will probably be put towards trying to make up for his injuries, like more reconstructive surgery if required etc.
Not all compensation claims are unfounded or undeserving.
Not all compensation claims are unfounded or undeserving.
mrmr96 said:
Tripping on a paving slab and spraining your wrist is something you can probably get over. Whereas having the steerer snap on a bike at speed causing you to hit a barrier with your face which leaves you disfigured for life, is a different matter all together. If the bike was faulty and was the cause of this life changing event then I think its right to be compensated for that. I'm sure the lad in question would rather have his face back as it was but this legal action is the 'next best thing'. Indeed any payout will probably be put towards trying to make up for his injuries, like more reconstructive surgery if required etc.
Not all compensation claims are unfounded or undeserving.
Good point, well made.Not all compensation claims are unfounded or undeserving.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff