Dan686

@g-42: You're assuming that the reason why people in Europe don't wear helmets for city use is that they don't want to physically wear a helmet and that somehow this would be preferable. In reality, the reason why they don't wear helmets is that the vast majority of urban cycling is just not that dangerous from a head injury perspective. You're far more likely to get a head injury in a motor vehicle accident (the leading cause of head injuries in North America, incidentally) and yet we don't wear helmets while driving a car. None of this is to say that I oppose helmet use during spirited road rides, but if I'm rolling to a grocery store at 8mph on a city bike, it seems rather unnecessary.

@blowmyfuse: Ease up cowboy. Go back and read the comment I originally responded to and go back and read the response I was responding to here. Note the countries of origin of the individuals promoting a notion that compensation is in order when there are negative consequences to personal decisions. Now go and take a look at my geographical location. I'm 20 miles from the US/Canada border. I have plenty of interactions with "actual Americans". I don't watch TV or read sensational politicized news. My opinions on the cultural differences between our two countries are based off of countless interactions with real people, both Canadian and American. If you'd actually read the comment train with the intent to understand where others are coming from, you'd see that my original point was that suing people after hurting yourself on a mountain bike is generally counter to the entire culture and genesis of mountain biking, and any other "extreme" sport. These sports originated from a notion of "rejecting the system" and generally being rad/gnarly. I can't think of anything less gnarly than suing a manufacturer for a defective piece of equipment that passed through QC. None of this is to say that a lawsuit would even be successful, as I totally understand that the threshold of proving failure in a duty of care by the manufacturer is challenging to achieve for most situations where this would be an issue. You say below yourself that "everything about mountain biking has been about pushing past what the bike can do". Exactly. I agree. Suing for a bike failure causing injury is thus everything that mountain biking isn't.

@shinook: "normal use" used to be a pretty ill-defined concept in this sport not too long ago, and still is in many regards. Had early mountain bikers sued for product failures causing injury, I doubt any mountain bike companies would have survived, and I'm sure there were opportunities to do so. I understand we are now in a fairly mature industry but it's built off of the uncertainty and risks undertaken by people in the early days of the sport. Litigation risk absolutely crushes innovation, as the risk skews the incentive curve substantially. Companies can't try new things if they are constantly worried about the real risk of being sued by consumers. Not saying this is that type of case, but FFS, if you choose to mountain bike, you're already in a privileged minority and you should assume that personal risk in conjunction with that decision. Sometimes shit happens that isn't your fault. It doesn't mean you deserve compensation. That entitlement is "sue culture", and it's a uniquely American attitude. I've met people in Canada who have spinal injuries from failed mtb gear.....didn't sue, and wouldn't have even thought of doing so. It's a cultural difference.

@Yetimike2019: "had it I may have sued" - sums up American litigious society nicely, and very contrary to the original spirit of mountain biking. This sport could never have developed in the first place had people sued every time they hurt themselves. It sucks your bike broke, but nobody forced you off the drop. Show some responsibility man!