R100GS Fans: Schneider's Inc. Forced Under By Lawsuit

This is the GS side-stand fixer.

What exactly does it do and why is it dangerous?

And this is the RS/RT version:

nealart said:

This is the GS side-stand fixer.

What exactly does it do and why is it dangerous?

Click to expand...

It changes the way the BMW-designed sidestand works. The original design automatically brings up the sidestand when the bike's weight is removed from it, under spring force. Some people have problems deploying the sidestand from the saddle, because it must be held in place by the left foot while the bike is being leaned over to the left. Also, if the bike is parked on a crowned road, the bike may not be leaned far enough over to keep the stand deployed.

The fixer removes this "feature". When the stand is pushed far enough forward, it stays there. The bike can then be leaned left with the left foot supporting the bike.

The drawback to the fix, and the reason for the original design, is to prevent the rider from riding away with the sidestand deployed. This can cause a crash in the first left hand turn.

BMW has tried a number of other solutions to this problem over the years. Some of the early K bikes had a second cable attached to the clutch lever that pulled up the sidestand. All of the modern bikes have an interlock switch that kills the motor if the rider shifts out of neutral with the stand down.

So, that means any old fashioned kick stand is vulnerable to law suit?

nealart said:

So, that means any old fashioned kick stand is vulnerable to law suit?

Click to expand...

Low vulnerability (but, not zero), because at the time the bike was built and sold, "old-fashioned kick stands" were the norm, and would probably be legally "reasonable", and therefore no negligence for the manufacturer to use them (again, I'm not saying zero risk).

The legal problem for these defeat mechanisms (and I have them on both of my Ducatis to defeat the spring-loaded side stands) is that once a "safety" side stand becomes the industry norm, then selling something that defeats the mechanism can be determined to be not reasonable, and therefore negligent. This gives rise to potential legal liability to any person who gets injured as a result, even if that person understood the risk when they installed the defeat mechanism.

Antilock brakes (ABS) were available on cars in Europe before they were available on the exact same model cars sold in the U.S. Wonder why? If the manufacturer changes what is the "normal" braking system, and then an accident occurs that is claimed to be caused by an ABS failure, potential liability arises (especially in the U.S.) even if the manufacturer claims that OVERALL cars are safer with ABS. They basically waited until ABS had proven themselves in the real world, and thus had become "normal", before they put them on U.S. cars.

Thanks for the explanation.

I guess that means I can sue the Brown side-stand company if I f*ck up.

And I will probably win, because if this thread is true, there is a precedence.

Do I have to claim I somehow did not know that I was defeating the safety feature when I installed it? Would that be a plea of insanity?

I am not expected to know what I am doing - just the manufacturer, right?

Of course, if I am dead it will make it harder to get the $$$$.

There is always a hitch.

nealart said:

I guess that means I can sue the Brown side-stand company if I f*ck up.

Click to expand...

"Can" and "Should" are two completely different things.

Whoa, you're going to put the moral question on me?

I thought we were all saying it was the lawyers who are the scumbags and not the person who originally picked up the phone and called them.

But some of the commercials showing people holding fists full of cash make it hard to think clearly.

nealart said:

Whoa, you're going to put the moral question on me?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I didn't mean to open up that whole "personal responsibility" can of worms.

great posts on this topic.....

I would suggest googling "loser pays" for an indepth explanation of the term as it is applied in most of the rest of the world, the American system of tort and how a better system could better serve everyone.

Great posts, a lot to think about.

I like the footage running in the background.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9bJoqVY9ajw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9bJoqVY9ajw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Interlock switches are not without drawbacks. On a heavily loaded dualsport bike, you may find that you can't get the stand up after mounting the bike if you have parked on uneven terrain. So, you need to be able to ride off with the stand down to get to a position where you can retract it.

Not lawyers' fault

Think about this. It's not the lawyers, folks...it's the judges. Judges could stop all this crazy mess. We should elect/appoint judges with level heads and common sense. Lawyers only go as far as judges allow them. The judge should have run the plaintiff's attorney out of the court room in this case.

Never met a Judge that was not a lawyer first.

forced under

The legal problem....BeemerMike

Click to expand...

Good explanation, Mike.

It's not the lawyers...it's the judges...Robertklee

Click to expand...

As a Canadian attorney, I've wondered whether one of the problems with the U.S. tort system is the use of civil juries. It seems to me they can get emotional in these cases and end up giving huge awards and making findings of liability where they shouldn't be. Eventually they are overturned or reduced on appeal, at great cost to both parties. In my home province, and in the rest of Canada, AFAIK (and excepting Quebec) you need leave of the court to get a civil jury, and you're going to have a tough time getting that order, because judges don't like juries.

Missed my point

cactuspat said:

Never met a Judge that was not a lawyer first.

Click to expand...

True-but good judges should control lawyers. I saw a judge tell a lawyer once that he should be ashamed for bringing a particular law suit; that lawyers like him were the reason people didn't like lawyers...then he threw it out.

To get back on topic...

Did anyone find the case online? Is there anything any of us can do to help out Bill? I'll sign an waiver and buy 3 side stand fixers ---'cause I need them!

Suggestions?

Depends on the definition of 'is'. William Jefferson Blythe Clinton.

beemerguru said:

'cause I need them!

Suggestions?

Click to expand...

Would the Brown side-stand work for you?

http://store.bobsbmw.com/browseproducts/Brown's-Sidestand-for-1970-to-1984-air-head-twins-(excluding-R65--R80GS-ST).HTML